Staff Dysfunction at the New Orleans Office of Inspector General

Featured below is an excerpt from the recent Louisiana Justice Institute report A Vote of No Confidence: The Case for Re-Organization of the New Orleans Ethics Review Board and Office of Inspector General. We continue to highlight sections of this report in this space because we believe that the debate over the future direction of these institutions is important to New Orleans' future. You can download the complete report at NolaPublicRecords.org.

Below, we discuss staff dysfunction and questionable hiring and firing practices at the Office of Inspector General.

The New Orleans Office of Inspector General (OIG) has seen a revolving door of personnel. Since January 2009, 10 of 23 employees have either been fired or have quit. Most of the terminations occurred in the aftermath of controversial events within the OIG, often involving the terminated individuals. Furthermore, all but two OIG employees are classified as civil servants and, therefore, the rules governing their hiring and termination must follow the civil service commission regulations, which carry mandates for hiring selections and due process prior to termination.

There have been several grievances filed by former employees in the OIG, alleging disturbing conflicts with senior management. In his departure letter to the OIG, Daniel Benbow stated,

“The apparent lack of organization and proper tools are extremely detrimental to staff recruitment and retention. While management may muddle around under the present conditions, any staff worth keeping will not. This office has passed the point of no return on excuses, finger-pointing, and other means of procrastination several months ago. It’s time everyone either step up to the plate or get out of the game.”

In response to Benbow’s letter, then Inspector General Robert Cerasoli stated,

“It is my understanding that [Benbow]’s title is Deputy of Audit and Review. I wasn’t aware that [Leonard Odom, Neely Moody], or I were reporting to him. He should concern himself with the functions of the Audit side…I find this e-mail highly offensive…I stepped up to the plate on Sept. 5, 2007 and have been there for one year now. I will not be getting out of the game. I would suggest if [Benbow] wants to, now is a good time."

Another example of the lack of cohesiveness in the OIG is the abrupt ousting of Leonard Odom. In an effort to quickly seat Edouard Quatreveaux as the new Inspector General, Odom’s termination occurred after a series of incriminating reports about the Office of Inspector General were published under Odom’s leadership. In an interview with a reporter of the Times Picayune regarding the abrupt departure of Interim Inspector General Leonard Odom, ERB Chairman Wildes stated, “I wanted to avoid any last minute hires or expenditures.”

Most disturbing has been the October 2009 terminations of two Auditors. These Auditors were fired from the OIG after having produced the report Assessment of the Transition of the New Orleans Office of Inspector General from Inspector General Robert Cerasoli to Interim Inspector General Leonard Odom on January 30, 2009, that was critical of Cerasoli’s management.

In July 2009, Susan Brown and Laura East were directed to prepare a performance review of the OIG to determine the position of the office from its inception through the time of Cerasoli’s departure, and in preparation for the new Inspector General. While working on this performance review, according to East and Brown, they were placed in an office separate from the regular office, given separate keys to this office, and instructed to keep the door locked at all times, for security purposes.

East and Brown uncovered information that they believed had possible implications of waste, abuse, and mismanagement, and took these observations to Interim Inspector General Odom, who directed them to document their findings and, pursuant to City Code Article XIII, Section 2-1120(11)(o), and report it to the appropriate legal authorities, in this case the State Ethics Review Board and the State Inspector General.

On August 28, 2009 the State Inspector General directed Brown and East to meet with the State Legislative Auditor, who informed them that the OIG was being placed under investigation and/or audit.

East and Brown were scheduled to meet with the State Legislative Auditor beginning September 9, 2009, but were denied access. Later, they discovered their offices had been broken into, and documents removed. The report of break-in was made to Chief of Investigations Hugh Fox, who disclosed that the office of the OIG Personnel Manager Sam Stoute had also been vandalized and locked drawers containing confidential records compromised.

The OIG Assessment of the Transition report was particularly critical of Dave Westerling, the Supervisory Forensic Engineer hired from Massachusetts by Cerasoli. It was Westerling who was named Interim Inspector General after Quatrevaux temporarily left office after only one week on the job – and one meeting with the State Legislative Auditor – and Westerling who fired East and Brown.

On September 22, 2009, East and Brown attended an approved forensic accounting conference in Orlando, Florida. However, on September 23, 2009, after Interim Inspector General Westerling received notice from the State Legislative Auditor that East and Brown must be made available for interview immediately upon return from this conference, Westerling sent notice by certified mail and overnight mail – that very same evening – of their termination from employment.

Westerling stated the reason the auditors were fired was because “they failed to show up for work and efforts to reach the two employees about their absences were unsuccessful.” Public records show that Westerling’s statement is false. Leave requests show that both employees had requested time off for a work-related conference related to their functions at the OIG.

Two days after Westerling fired East and Brown, on September 25, 2009, Hugh Fox, the OIG Chief of Investigations charged with investigating possible criminal activity within the OIG, voluntarily separated himself from the Office of Inspector General – effective immediately.

The New Orleans Ethics Review Board's Questionable Hiring Practices

Featured below is an excerpt from the recent Louisiana Justice Institute report A Vote of No Confidence: The Case for Re-Organization of the New Orleans Ethics Review Board and Office of Inspector General. We continue to highlight sections of this report in this space because we believe that the debate over the future direction of these institutions is important to New Orleans' future. You can download the complete report at NolaPublicRecords.org.

Below, we highlight more reasons that the Ethics Review Board has squandered the public trust - questionable hiring practices overseen by the Board.

Executive Director Jill Poutré

If the ERB would serve as a catalytic agent for governmental accountability in New Orleans, no doubt there would need to be strong leadership at its helm. However, based on the recommendation of then Inspector General Robert Cerasoli, the the ERB hired Jill Poutré to serve as its Executive Director, when she was an inexperienced 22 year old college senior, who had not yet graduated. Mr. Cerasoli had been Ms. Poutré’s college instructor. The ERB did not advertise the executive director position even though the salary and benefits come to $90,000/year. The duties of the ERB executive director include management of the budget for the office, handling of evidence, scheduling hearings, reports, and investigations. However, at the time of her hiring, Ms. Poutré had no relevant job experience, and never worked in a full-time professional position. Her previous employment was working part-time at a window treatment business with compensation of $10/hour.

Inspector General Eduoard Quatrevaux

In the wake of Robert Cerasoli’s departure from the Office of Inspector General, the ERB launched a nationwide search to find his replacement. That search ended in early September 2009 with the hiring of Edouard Quatrevaux. As a result of the OIG’s lack of established hiring protocols, there are several major issues with the search and subsequent selection process.

From public records, it appears that the Inspector General position was advertised inconsistently in several places. The Inspector General position that was posted on the Career Builder website in the “Accounting and Audit” area, where many people with accounting backgrounds, but no experience or certification as an Inspector General, applied.

The same can be said for applicants who found the position posted on the Nola.com website, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners website, the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws website, the Association of Local Government Auditors website, and the Institute of Internal Auditors website. Thus, the applications were insufficient. The advertisement instructed applicants to send their résumé, letter of interest, three letters of recommendation, and college transcripts by August 31, 2009.

Overall, it appears that sixty-two (62) of the sixty-four (64) rejected applications were missing one or more critical items. Although the OIG cast a wide net for its job search, it resulted in few qualified applicants. Of the 68 applicants who applied, only four, according to the Ethics Review Board (ERB), were deemed qualified to serve as the Inspector General. According to the ERB, the other 64 applicants “were found ineligible due to lack of Certified Inspector General (CIG) certification and/or inability to meet the four (4) year absence from the City requirement per City Code Sec. 2-1120 (3) (h).” One of the four, Gary Weishaar, does not list CIG certification in his résumé. Another, current IG Quatrevaux, appended his application package on August 21, 2009 to include notification of his CIG certification on that date.

The office announced the hiring of its new IG on September 3, 2009, just three days after the final application deadline.

While the ERB is not responsible for the deficiencies in the majority of the applications, the decision to hire an IG from a weak pool of applicants is entirely an ERB decision. This search, which lasted more than six months, yielded only four qualified candidates. It is understandable that the office was eager to fill its top position in a timely fashion, but the rationale of the hiring committee to make a selection among only four qualified applicants is questionable.

It is unclear how many individuals have CIG status, and how large the pool of individuals qualified for the Inspector General position really is. The designation of CIG status is conferred by the Association of Inspectors General, a national organization of which certified Inspectors General are members. The Association of Inspectors General did not respond when inquired about their program and its former attendees. There is no way to know if a pool of four was representative of only a small number of people being qualified for the post, or if the search simply yielded few results from a much larger pool.

The lingering question is why Mr. Quatrevaux was selected to be interviewed for a position that he did not qualify for, while so many other candidates with equal, if not better qualifications, were not selected to be interviewed. For the public, the issue is whether the OIG has the best person at the helm, and whether there was a level playing field for every non-CIG candidate, like Mr. Quatrevaux, to be interviewed for the position of the Inspector General.

Interim Inspector General David Westerling

The ERB appointed David Westerling – a former Cerasoli colleague in Massachusetts – as the Interim Inspector General during Inspector General Edouard Quatrevaux’s leave of absence. Prior to the appointment, Mr. Westerling (pictured above) worked in the OIG as the Supervisory Forensic Engineer. However, the ERB’s appointment of Mr. Westerling may have violated the Article XIII, Section 2-1120(3)(i) proscription, [n]o officer or employee of the office of the inspector general shall hold office in any political party or political committee, or participate in any political campaign of any candidate for public office, or make any campaign contribution or campaign endorsement, while an officer or employee of the office of inspector general.”

Mr. Westerling was elected to public office as Town Moderator of Harvard, Massachusetts in 2003 and served until June 9, 2008. Westerling back-dated his resignation letter, and his notice to the Harvard Town Hall (written from his home in Harvard) was not received until June 11, 2008 – nine (9) days after he began work at the New Orleans OIG, which is a clear violation of the New Orleans municipal code. Further, there is no evidence he resigned all political affiliation associated with that position.