by Ivan Foley
Landmark editor
Law enforcement investigative documents obtained by The Landmark indicate a then-supervisor in the Platte County Human Resources Department informed employees under her that she would give them--and herself--an extra two weeks of paid vacation “because they did not get a raise.”
A report filed by Detective Curt DeVaul of the Platte County Sheriff’s Department details an interview he conducted with LeAnna Fannon, employee in the human resources department. Fannon has served in various capacities in the HR department, including a role as department head. She was later demoted to payroll clerk.
Fannon has been in the middle of the highly-publicized turmoil in the county’s HR department for months. She has filed an accusation of retaliation, discrimination and sexual harassment with the Missouri Human Rights Commission against the county and specifically the female county auditor, alleging the auditor began a probe of the HR department after Fannon says she declined what she felt were sexual advances from the auditor. The auditor has emphatically denied the allegations.
Last fall at the time Platte County Auditor Siobhann Williams was announcing she was performing an audit of the county’s human resources department due to alleged problems and inconsistencies in payroll and benefits, county commissioners acknowledged there were some concerns in the HR office. Commissioners at that time acknowledged to the media that Fannon had been placed on administrative leave and also was demoted from her position as department head.
Detective DeVaul’s interview with Fannon came as part of a law enforcement investigation into human resources department employee Kendra Montgomery. Montgomery is the defendant in a civil suit brought by the Platte County Commission. That suit alleges Montgomery received more than $2,200 in unwarranted vacation time, medical leave and comp time between Jan. 16, 2008 until her dismissal in November of 2009.
After the civil suit was filed, law enforcement began a criminal investigation into the allegations. Last week The Landmark exclusively reported that Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd has announced there will be no charges brought against Montgomery.
“There was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had any criminal intent,” Zahnd told The Landmark last week.
Once the prosecutor declined to press charges, the investigative reports became an open record. The Landmark requested the reports from law enforcement authorities at mid-day on Tuesday and received them immediately.
Though no charges have been filed against anyone in the HR department, information uncovered in the process of the criminal investigation may have led to disciplinary action against Fannon by the county commission. Amid reports from several sources that Fannon was placed on paid administrative leave for a week, it is known Fannon was not at work on Friday, Feb. 26 and Monday through Thursday, March 1-4. She returned to the HR office on Friday, March 5.
As of press time Wednesday, Fannon had not returned multiple phone calls from The Landmark seeking comment.
On Friday morning, March 5, The Landmark sent a Sunshine Law request for public information in regard to personnel actions taken within the HR department. The request was sent to Dana Babcock, director of administration, and carbon copied to each of the three county commissioners. Later Friday, Commissioner Kathy Dusenbery acknowledged receiving the request. She said Babcock was off work until Tuesday and that might delay the county’s ability to provide this public information. Babcock returned to work on Tuesday and sent an email to The Landmark saying she would have a “response” to the newspaper by this Friday at 5 p.m. That would mean the request will not be addressed until more than a week after it was submitted. The normal accepted turnaround time as detailed in the Sunshine Law is 72 hours or less.
Montgomery says in her court filing in answer to the county’s civil suit that she denies allegations that she deliberately falsified time records to reflect that she was entitled to more vacation time hours, more medical leave hours and more comp time than actually earned.
Montgomery says in her answer that her immediate supervisor at the time--LeAnna Fannon--approved Montgomery’s time sheets. Montgomery also told investigators that Fannon had told her that she (Fannon) would allow the HR department employees an extra two weeks of paid vacation for that year “because the employees did not get a raise.”
Det. DeVaul interviewed Fannon as part of the probe on Dec. 28. Verbatim bullet points from the detective’s narrative from that interview include:
•“I asked Fannon if she had told Kendra Montgomery and Christy George in the past that she was going to give them an extra two weeks of paid vacation this year because they did not get a raise. Fannon said that she did tell Montgomery and George that she was giving them and herself an extra two weeks of paid vacation this year because they did not get a raise. Fannon said that she had George and Montgomery come to her office around May or June of 2009 and then she told them this information. Fannon said that she knew that other departments had been doing the same thing so she was going to let her employees do it as well.”
•“I asked Fannon how (she) and her employees were going to claim this extra two weeks of vacation on their time sheets. Fannon said that she had not discussed that with them and was unsure.”
•“Fannon said that she had intended to talk with her supervisor at the time, Dana Babcock, about this issue but never did. Fannon also said that the county commission was not aware of her decision to give her employees this extra paid time off. Fannon said that she had told Mary Robinson (Editor’s note: Robinson was hired in November as the new HR director) about this information when she started working in human resources.
•”Fannon said that around the end of June or beginning of July of 2009 she had heard the county commission was unhappy about another department doing the same type of thing with their employees. Fannon said that was when she told Montgomery that she was no longer going to allow herself or her employees to take off the extra two weeks of paid vacation.”
•“I asked Fannon if she had informed George that she had changed her mind and was not going to let anyone have the extra two weeks of vacation time. Fannon said that she never told George this information but did tell Montgomery. Fannon said that George and herself never took the extra two weeks of paid vacation.”
•“Fannon was asked if Montgomery ever took the extra two weeks of vacation time off. Fannon said that Montgomery had taken about two weeks of paid time off for a surgery at the end of October or start of November of 2009. Fannon said that she was unsure if Montgomery had used vacation, sick or comp time for the surgery. Fannon said that Montgomery should have not taken the extra two weeks of vacation time for this because she had told Montgomery around June or July of 2009 that she was not going to let her take the extra two weeks of vacation off.”
•“Fannon then told me that she had a calendar that she had kept track of days off for her employees on her computer. I asked Fannon why I had not received this calendar in the past. Fannon said she thought that I had the calendar already. I asked her if she would find that calendar and give it to me. Fannon said that she would.”
The detective then notes in his report that he asked Fannon to provide a written statement regarding the information she had just shared with the detective. The Landmark acquired a copy of Fannon’s written statement. In that statement, written two days after her interview with the detective, Fannon appears to water down and backtrack from some of her earlier comments made to Det. DeVaul.
Fannon’s handwritten statement to authorities says:
“In January 2009, Kendra Montgomery told me that she noticed and heard that some departments gave time off instead of a raise. I told her that I have also heard that over the years. She complained that we are all not treated fairly and I told her that with different offices and officeholders that make their own rules that is to be expected.
“She told me that she was actively looking for a new job. I thought that if possible maybe the commission would consider the possibility of having a week off extra instead of a pay increase to keep employees. I told in approximately May or June to Christy George and Kendra Montgomery that having time off sounds like a good incentive and we should do it.
“I then had a meeting with the commission where it was discussed that taking time without putting it on a timesheet would be falsifying reports. I came back down to the office and I told Kendra that we would not be able to do the two weeks, I had thought about it long and hard and it would not be appropriate,” Fannon wrote.
“Kendra was very upset. This was in July. I talked to Christy George and told her at a later date that we could not do the two weeks off,” Fannon said in her written statement, a contradiction from what the detective quotes her as saying in his narrative.
In a phone conversation on Monday, The Landmark asked Kathy Dusenbery, first district commissioner, for comment on the new developments in the civil suit involving the county and Montgomery.
“Since it is in litigation I can’t really comment,” she said.
Asked to confirm or comment on the disciplinary action apparently taken against Fannon as a result of information that came to light during the criminal investigation, Dusenbery said:
“That’s personnel and that’s another topic I can’t comment on. It might just lead to more litigation and I don’t want any more litigation right now. . . enough is enough,” Dusenbery said with a laugh.
The placement of Fannon on administrative leave would be at least the second time that has happened, to go along with the demotion commissioners hit her with last year.
Williams, the county auditor accused of discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment by Fannon, says she has no knowledge of the latest developments or of any personnel action that may have been taken against Fannon.
“I would be completely out of the loop on that. It’s not like the commissioners and I are having coffee every morning,” the auditor remarked.
|
