Don Denison case

 

     OREGON GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AND
     PRACTICES COMMISSION

     INVESTIGATION

 


CASE NO:          06-105EDC


DATE:          June 22, 2006


RESPONDENT:     DENISON, Donald A., Chief of Police, City of Toledo


COMPLAINANT:     JOHNSON, Mary


RECOMMENDED GSPC ACTION:     Make preliminary finding of 9 violations of ORS 244.040(1)(a) and 10 Violations of ORS 244.120(1)(c)


SYNOPSIS: Donald A. Denison was the Chief of Police for the City of Toledo. He had oversight of the Police Explorer Scout Program and other youth activities.

He opened a personal business bank checking account to manage funds related to the explorer program. Public funds were deposited along with private funds into the account. Mr. Denison signed checks drawn on the account that were made payable to relatives. One transaction had the effect of him gaining an interest free loan of nearly $500.00 for six months.

Mr. Denison submitted requests for payments from the city Finance Department for a share of the sale of vehicles that were donated to the explorer program. The payments were to his benefit and to the benefit of relatives. He failed to notify the city manager in writing of his being met with a conflict of interest when he submitted each request.
Mr. Denison also created an agreement for the city to use his parents’ property. The agreement resulted in either financial gain or the avoidance of a financial detriment for his parents.

Mr. Denison used his position to gain the use of a city backhoe to bury a family horse and took laptop computers from the police department for his children to use for personal business.

RELEVANT STATUTES: The following Oregon Revised Statutes are applicable to issues addressed herein:

244.020(1) " ‘Actual conflict of interest’ means any action or any decision or recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the effect of which would be to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of the person or the person's relative or any business with which the person or a relative of the person is associated unless the pecuniary benefit or detriment arises out of circumstances described in subsection (14) of this section.”

244.020(14) " ‘Potential conflict of interest’ means any action or any decision or recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the effect of which could be to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of the person or the person's relative, or a business with which the person or the person's relative is associated, unless the pecuniary benefit or detriment arises out of the following:”

244.020(15) “ ‘Public official’ means any person who, when an alleged violation of this chapter occurs, is serving the State of Oregon or any of its political subdivisions or any other public body of the state as an officer, employee, agent or otherwise, and irrespective of whether the person is compensated for such services.”

244.020(16) " ‘Relative’ means the spouse of the public official, any children of the public official or of the public official's spouse, and brothers, sisters or parents of the public official or of the public official's spouse.”

244.040 “Code of ethics; prohibited actions; honoraria. The following actions are prohibited regardless of whether actual conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest are announced or disclosed pursuant to ORS 244.120:”

244.040(1)(a) “No public official shall use or attempt to use official position or office to obtain financial gain or avoidance of financial detriment that would not otherwise be available but for the public official's holding of the official position or office, other than official salary, honoraria, except as prohibited in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, reimbursement of expenses or an unsolicited award for professional achievement for the public official or the public official’s relative, or for any business with which the public official or a relative of the public official is associated.”

244.120 “Methods of handling conflicts; generally; application to elected officials or members of boards. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, when met with an actual or potential conflict of interest, a public official shall:”

244.120(1)(c) “If the public official is any other appointed official subject to this chapter, notify in writing the person who appointed the public official to office of the nature of the conflict, and request that the appointing authority dispose of the matter giving rise to the conflict. Upon receipt of the request, the appointing authority shall designate within a reasonable time an alternate to dispose of the matter, or shall direct the official to dispose of the matter in a manner specified by the appointing authority.”

INVESTIGATION: The Government Standards and Practices Commission (GSPC) began a preliminary review in this matter when it received a letter of complaint from Mary Johnson on 1/17/06 (#PR1). On 4/7/06, the GSPC ended the preliminary review when it was determined there was cause to investigate allegations that Toledo Police Chief Donald A. Denison may have violated Government Standards and Practices law. Mr. Denison was present and participated in the executive session. The focus of the investigation was to determine if there was a preponderance of evidence indicating that Mr. Denison used or attempted to use his official position to gain a prohibited financial benefit for himself and for relatives. The investigation was also to determine if there was evidence indicating that Mr. Denison was met with conflicts of interest and failed to provide his appointing authority with written disclosure of the conflicts. Both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Denison have been informed of GSPC actions in this matter. Mr. Denison was provided with the information received with the complaint, the preliminary review report and was invited to provide any information he believed would assist the GSPC in conducting the investigation.

Information provided in the preliminary review indicated that Mr. Denison has been Chief of Police for about 6 and one-half years. The Toledo Police Department (TPD) had 7 sworn officer and 5 dispatcher positions. The department operates 4 patrol cars (#PR16).
///
///
In addition to his duties as the police chief, Mr. Denison managed programs in the Toledo area that provided activities to the area’s youth. He oversaw the city programs for an Explorer Scout Post, “Star Tech” and “Challenge Camp.” The Star Tech program provided participants with experience and training in computer use and repair. The Challenge Camp was an annual one to two week event provided on private property owned by Mr. Denison’s parents. The camp participants were provided a variety of outdoor activities (#PR1, #PR10 and #PR20).

During the preliminary review City Manager Pete Wall told me that Mr. Denison made all decisions when it came to managing the Police Explorers, Star Tech and Challenge Camp. He indicated that Mr. Denison did not, at any time, submit a written notice to him disclosing that he was met with a conflict of interest with regard to any of his actions (#PR16).

Funding for the various youth activities came through private donations and public funds from the city and the county. It appears that some funds were used to buy and sell state and federal surplus property. Some money, from surplus property transactions, and surplus equipment were used to support youth activities.

Most of the county funds used for the youth activities apparently came through the Lincoln County Commission on Children and Families (LCC&F). Ms. Johnson, the complainant, maintained the financial records for the East County Community Partnership (ECCP) and accounted for the expenditure of funds that were provided by LCC&F (#PR1).
///
///
///
///
POLICE EXPLORER SCOUT PROGRAM OUTSIDE BANK ACCOUNT

At the beginning of the period relevant to this investigation, the funds used for the police explorer program were managed by Mr. Denison as one of his police department’s forfeiture/seizure accounts. The city Finance Department maintained and audited the account records (#PR2).

On 6/22/04, Mr. Denison opened a personal business account under the name of Toledo Police Explorer Program - Don Denison. When the account was opened he used his personal social security account number. The account required only one signature on checks. Mr. Denison and Maria Waldrip were authorized to sign checks on the account. Ms. Waldrip told me on 6/8/06 that she did not sign any checks drawn on the account (#PR4 and #PR14).

It is unclear whether the idea for the account was Mr. Denison’s or that of the City Manager, Mr. Wall. They both refer to discussions they had before the account was opened. What is clear, is that Mr. Wall and the City Treasurer, Polly Chavarria, told Mr. Denison that any “outside” account must not be linked to the city, no city money was to be deposited in any “outside” account and that checks drawn on the account were to require two signatures. Mr. Denison confirmed his understanding of these conditions in an e-mail message to Mr. Wall on 4/2/04 (#PR16, #PR20, #INV1, #INV2 and #INV3).

In May 2005, when the City Manager and Treasurer discovered that city/county funds had been deposited into the “outside” account, they ordered it closed and the balance of funds were returned to city managed accounts and placed into city financial records (#PR3, #PR4, #PR14, #PR16 and #PR20).
I have reviewed documents related to this “outside” account and have identified several transactions and actions by Mr. Denison that are relevant to provisions of Government Standards and Practices law. Mr. Denison signed the following checks that were made payable to relatives (#INV4, #INV5, #INV6, #INV7, #INV8 and #INV10):

Check#     Date          Payee               Amount     Purpose
     1109          11/22/04     Oliver Johnson     448.55     Travel Expenses
     1110          11/22/04     Oliver Johnson      24.19     Travel Expenses
     1111          12/8/04     Melissa Irish           85.00     Labor
     1112          12/21/04     Carson Denison     215.00     Labor
     1113          12/21/04     Bart Johnson          100.00     Labor
     TOTAL                          $872.74
     (Oliver Bart Johnson is Mr. Denison’s father-in-law. The other payees are his children.)

On or about 12/8/04, Mr. Denison submitted an itemized list of travel related expenses to the city Finance Department. Most of the expenses were incurred by both Mr. Denison and Mr. Johnson during the course of acquiring and transporting surplus equipment. The itemized expenses for Mr. Johnson were the same as those Mr. Denison had already paid to Mr. Johnson from the “outside” account on 11/22/04 (see check numbers 1109 and 1110 above totaling $472.74). City of Toledo check number 44667 was issued to Don Denison on 12/16/04 in the amount of $1,146.77, which included the $472.74 paid from the “outside” account (#INV9).
///
///
///
     Prior to closing the “outside” account, Mr. Denison deposited $550.00 on 5/26/05. The notation in the check register he maintained read as follows (#PR14):

“Reim Trip Expense B Johnson 448.55 & 100.00 & for comp (illegible).”

In his written explanation to the Finance Department, Mr. Denison indicated the deposit on 5/26/05 included payment for a computer and the return of the duplicate reimbursement of $448.55 and $24.19 representing the travel expenses incurred by Mr. Johnson in October and November 2004 (#PR14).

DONATED VEHICLE SALES

Mr. Denison solicited and accepted vehicles as donations to help fund the police department explorer scout program. The vehicles were sold through the State of Oregon’s Surplus Property Sales Program. Most of the donated vehicles were either Mr. Denison’s or his relatives. When a vehicle was sold, the surplus sales office sent the proceeds to the city after deducting a service fee. Mr. Denison submitted a statement to the Finance Department designating what to pay to the donors and the balance remained for the support of youth programs. On average, the vehicle donors received 80% of the sale proceeds. Mr. Denison requested the following payments to him or to relatives from donated vehicle sales (#PR17, #INV11, #INV12, #INV13, #INV14, #INV15 and #INV16):

     Date          Check          Vehicle          Payee               Amount
     3/1/04          42421          1985 Ford p/u     D. Denison          $ 950
     3/1/04          42421          1983 Chevrolet     D. Denison          $ 300
     3/1/04          42422          1983 Oldsmobile     O. Johnson          $ 400
     Date          Check          Vehicle          Payee               Amount
     5/13/04     42991          1993 GMC Sub.     D. Denison          $4,200
     10/10/05     47567          1996 Dodge          S. Denison          $1,215
     3/3/06          48689          1985 Chevrolet p/u     O. Johnson          $ 239
     6/9/06          49229          1987 Ford Bronco     D. Denison          $ 400
                                                       $7,704
     (Samantha Denison is a daughter of Mr. Denison and listed above as S. Denison.)

PROPERTY OF JAMES AND BETTY DENISON

Mr. Wall provided background information on an agreement reached between James and Betty Denison and the city, on the use of their property for the “Toledo Police Department Youth Challenge Camp,” as follows (#PR16):

Mr. Wall indicated that he has never met James or Betty Denison nor did he discuss the agreement with them. He has never been out to their property.

According to Mr. Wall, Mr. Denison discussed the possibility of making the Denison property available for city youth activities with his parents. In 2003, Mr. Denison approached Mr. Wall with the idea of an agreement. Mr. Denison, Jim Ruggeri, the city attorney, and Mr. Wall discussed the proposal and drew up the agreement that was eventually signed by Mr. Wall and James and Betty Denison. Mr. Denison acted as the intermediary and took the agreement to his parents for signatures and then returned it to the city (#PR8, #PR10 and #PR16).
///
///
Mr. Wall signed the agreement on 8/14/03 and James and Betty Denison signed 8/16/03. The effective date was 7/1/03 for two years and subject to annual renewals with consent of each party to the agreement. The following excerpts from the agreement are relevant to Government Standards and Practices law (#PR10):

     “WHEREAS, Owners will receive certain limited improvements to said property; and
     WHEREAS, the City and the Owners have determined that it is to their mutual benefit to host the Youth Challenge Camp at Owner’s property,”

     “SECTION 2-OWNER’S CONSENT
          (3)     The Owners shall receive the benefit of the improvements to the Property, and shall acquire ownership over any improvements, recreational equipment, storage buildings, or other improvements remaining on the Property at the termination of this Agreement.”

     “The city agrees to:
          (1)     Make certain improvement to the Property for the benefit of the camp and the Owners, including limited clearing, brush removal, pasture improvements, mowing, and installation of recreational equipment.”

          “SECTION 5 - HOLD HARMLESS
               The City agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the Owners, their heirs, officers, agents and employees, harmless from any and all claims, actions, liability or costs including attorney fees and other costs of defense, arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement, and arising from the sole negligence or intentional acts of the City or any of its officials, agents, or employees.”

Mr. Wall indicated that Mr. Denison managed and oversaw all of the activities that occurred under this agreement. If there was work to be done he made the arrangements and managed the expenses. Mr. Wall understood that most of the labor was done by volunteers. He did not believe that city personnel or equipment had been used out at the property (#PR16, #PR20, #INV21, #INV22 and #INV23).

The city Finance Department provided copies of receipts and documents Mr. Denison had submitted to indicate the cost of equipment and materials for improvements made on his parents property under the agreement. The following are some of the items that were purchased with city funds or obtained as state or federal surplus by the city. The surplus property use was represented by Mr. Denison as being for construction, improvement and maintenance of SWAT training facility at his parents’ property (#INV17, #INV18, #INV19, #INV32, #INV33 and #INV34):

      Date          Description           Value
     08/02/00     Tractor rental           165.00
     09/19/01     Wire Fencing           85.15
     08/09/02     Paddock Fencing      49.83
     05/07/03     Grass Seed           132.00
     05/21/03     Caterpillar Work      348.75
     07/19/03     Construction           25.06
      Date          Description           Value
     09/03/03     Lumber           44.96
     02/18/04     Canoe                75.00
     06/11/04     Tractor w/          6,640.00*
               Brush Hog
               Mower Equip.      175.00*
     06/15/04     Ford Tractor           629.00*
     06/28/04     Auger Rental           99.00
     07/15/04     Mooring Cable      661.00*
     09/24/04     Tractor Shipping     5,100.00
     10/03/04     Canoes           750.00
     12/16/04     Boat                150.00
     02/16/05     Wire Fencing           50.00
     04/19/05     Tractor Repair     4,126.97
     06/22/05     Trailer 4 Wheel      699.00*
     08/17/05     Building Material      34.77

     *This was state or federal surplus equipment obtained under a program available to city governments and/or law enforcement agencies. When obtained it has an acquisition value and for purposes of recipient agency inventory it is assigned a value of 23.3% of the acquisition value. These sums reflect that percentage (#INV18 and #INV19).
///
///
///
///
Joe Steenkook who lives near the property owned by James and Betty Denison, told me he used his backhoe to build a dirt ramp so two tractors could be driven off of a low-boy trailer onto the Denison property. Since then he has seen one of the tractors being used for mowing (#INV21 and #INV24).

Mr. Denison referred to his parents’ property as the “SWAT training” and “Challenge Camp” facility. He mentioned that the surplus mowers were used at that location. He also represented that the Police Department made such improvements as post holes, stairs on the river bank and a floating dock on the property (#INV27 and #INV28). In his response to the GSPC Mr. Denison indicated that the Sheriff’s Posse has also used the site (#PR20).

Lt Dave Carey, Patrol Commander, Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) told me that neither the county’s Interagency Swat Team, Interagency Narcotics Task Force nor the Sheriff’s Posse have trained at the property owned by Mr. Denison’s parents. He recalls Mr. Denison indicating that the property would be available for that purpose, but he never pursued the matter because he did not believe it offered any training potential. Lt. Carey did not know where the property was located (#INV26).

Deputy Chris Miller, LCSO and Officer Ken Real, Newport Police Department, are former Toledo Police Department officers who worked for Mr. Denison. Deputy Miller was on the Interagency Swat Team when he worked for the Toledo Police Department and remained on the team after he became a deputy with LCSO in September 2005. Both Officer Real and Deputy Miller told me they knew of no police training, including SWAT, being provided on the property owned by Mr. Denison’s parents (#INV25 and #INV26).
///
///
During the preliminary review, Mr. Denison provided his explanation of the city agreement with his parents and described the uses. The following is a summary of some of the details he provided (#PR20):

     The 60 acre site is located approximately 18 miles outside the city. It has a horse pasture, tree farm and 12 acres that had a history of being a campsite for many people. In addition to Challenge Camp, every summer the campsite is used by church groups, scouting organizations, Sheriff’s Posse and his extended family.

     An annual Challenge Camp was begun in 1999. All of the funds are raised by the city Explorer Post and the city provides “soft costs,” such as staff time. Mr. Denison indicated that he was the “ultimate decision maker” regarding improvements made to his parent’s property. The improvements he described are summarized as follows:

          Annual mowing                    Benches
          Re-seeding grass                    Fire pit
          Removal of blackberry plants          River bank stairs
          Widened roadbed                    Relocation and repair of fencing
          Sloped ground for amphitheater          Four-stall horse paddock
          8 picnic tables                    Skid-mounted storage shed
///
///
///
///
///
BURIAL OF HORSE

Dr. Steven R. Brown, DVM, Newport Animal Clinic, provided the following (#INV29):

Dr. Dennis E. Smialek, DVM, was sent to euthanize a horse belonging to Don Denison on 6/11/04. The horse was lame and had difficulty standing. Dr. Brown indicated that the horse was located on a farm near Toledo, but he did not have the exact location recorded in the file.

The normal practice, for disposing of a horse carcass, is to use a backhoe and bury the horse near where it dies. He said there are usually backhoes available to use on or near farm property. There are also rental agencies and businesses that could provide a backhoe for burying a horse.

(I contacted Wienert Equipment Rental in Newport. Their charge for a backhoe with operator is $83.75 per hour.)

Dr. Dennis E. Smialek, DVM of Bennett, CO, provided the following (#INV35):

     He could not be recall the exact date he euthanized the horse, but he remembered the event. There were several people at the site when he arrived at the scheduled time. He indicated that he was probably introduced, but could not remember the names.

When he arrived a backhoe was being operated by someone that had a pit nearly completed for the burial. Once ready, he and one other person coaxed the lame horse over near the pit where he put it down. He and several others helped move the carcass into the pit. The backhoe operator then began putting the soil in the pit to bury the horse and Dr. Smialek left.

Dr. Smialek indicated that he was not called to put the horse down as an emergency procedure. He indicated that all of the cases he handled for Dr. Brown were scheduled appointments. He believed that the euthanasia was probably scheduled at least 24 hours in advance.

Herb Jennings, former Toledo Director of Public Works provided the following (#INV21):

Mr. Denison asked a city employee, Dale VanNatta, to use the city backhoe to move and bury a horse owned by someone in Mr. Denison’s family. Mr. VanNatta sought permission from his supervisor, George Harden, who was relatively new to public agency employment. Gaining permission, Mr. VanNatta drove the backhoe out to the location of horse on Christiansen Rd. and buried the animal. A police car escorted him at some point. Mr. Jennings found out about the incident later and he told Mr. Harden that such use of public equipment was not permitted. He said the city does not run a rental service. [Mr. VanNatta confirmed his participation as described (#INV22).]

Mr. Wall and Mr. Denison confirmed the burial of the horse as described. Mr. Denison claimed that it was an emergency that occurred over a weekend. Mr. Wall indicated that he later told Mr. Denison that such use of city equipment was inappropriate (#PR16 and #PR20).
///
Polly Chavarria, Toledo City Treasurer, told me that she did not know of any city, including Toledo, that provided city equipment and an operator to work on a personal project. She provided a copy of a City of Toledo Resolution No. 1150, which set the fees to be charged for a wide range of services provided by a city. Fees were set for library services, planning services, swimming pool use, parking tickets, etc. (#INV30 and #INV31).

Mr. Denison provided the following information regarding the issue of authorizing the use of city equipment to bury his daughter’s horse (#PR20):

     He indicated that the city has a fee schedule for rates charged to citizens for the use of city equipment.

          [NOTE: The fee for a backhoe on a list provided by Mr. Denison was $40 and operator was $25. These were the same rates as listed in City of Toledo Resolution No. 1150 (#PR26 and #INV30).]

While it was not his intention at the time, Mr. Denison indicated that he has donated funds to the city explorer program and Challenge Camp. He believed that his donations would have been sufficient reimbursement to the city for what he believed was about 40 minutes of equipment and operator time. He cited the donations he made of $750 on 12/17/03, $417 on 4/21/04 and $30 on 6/30/05 (#PR20 and #PR26).
///
///
///
///
LAPTOP COMPUTERS

In the initial complaint, Ms. Johnson related information indicating that three police department laptop computers were taken home by Mr. Denison and given to his children for personal use (#PR8).

Mr. Denison provided the following information regarding the personal use of the laptop computers (#PR20 and #PR27):

He confirmed that he took at least two laptop computers home to allow his children to use them for school work, research and computer games (#PR9).

Two HP Pavilion ZE5170 Laptops were purchased from Tiger One on 2/26/03 for a total of $3,210 (#PR19).

When the two HP models were obtained in 2003, Mr. Denison indicated that he had problems that resulted in the loss of “critical data.” After some warranty repairs, he decided to have his children test the two HP laptops at home by using them for schoolwork and computer games to test the reliability of the computers (#PR20 and #PR27).

Mr. Denison indicated that he currently uses one of the HP laptops for his police work and takes the laptop home so he can do department work during off-duty time. He acknowledged that his children’s games and school work files remained on one of the computers, but it did not interfere with the laptop’s use for official business.
///
I have contacted several individuals regarding the personal use of the laptops and learned the following (#INV36):

Maria Waldrip and Sergeant Mark Fandrey, TPD, both indicated that the use of laptop computers were a project overseen by Mr. Denison. They knew very little about the matter. The TPD has desktop computers available for department personnel to use for official business. Neither Sgt. Fandrey nor Ms. Waldrip were aware of any TPD “critical data” being lost on laptops, since they do not use them.

Sgt. Fandrey indicated that there was one occasion where one laptop was tried in a patrol car to provide officers with a mobile data terminal. According to Sgt. Fandrey, the range for wireless reception was limited and the signal was unreliable. After a brief trial the effort was discontinued.

When Mr. Denison made a laptop available to TPD officers, they discovered that there were personal files on the laptop that appeared to belong to Mr. Denison’s children. Sgt. Fandrey, Officer Ken Real and Fire Chief Will Ewing personally saw this personal information on the laptop. Sgt. Fandrey indicated that, when Officer Real complained about the personal information of the Denison children, he deleted it. Sgt. Fandrey deleted the personal information from the directories for pictures, music, documents and one game. Sgt. Fandrey could not recall the brand name of the laptop. After he deleted the information he set the laptop aside as he and the TPD officers do not use laptops in their work.

CONCLUSIONS: Donald A. Denison was the Chief of Police for the City of Toledo during the period of time when events relevant to this investigation occurred. He was a public official as defined in ORS 244.020(15) and his parents, children and father-in-law referenced in the narrative met the definition of relative in ORS 244.020(16).

Mr. Denison opened a personal business checking account under the name Toledo Police Explorer Program - Don Denison. He issued five checks that were payable to relatives. Each of the five checks constitute a distinct violation of ORS 244.040(1)(a).

In issuing the five checks to his relatives, Mr. Denison was also met with an actual conflict of interest. He failed to notify his appointing authority in writing on each of the five occasions, resulting in five distinct violations of ORS 244.120(1)(c).

On 11/22/04, Mr. Denison issued two checks from the explorer scout account to reimburse his father-in-law for $472.74 in travel expenses. He later obtained personal reimbursement from the city for the same $472.74. Six months later he deposited $550.00 into the explorer scout account, which included the return of $472.74. These transactions resulted in Mr. Denison gaining an interest free loan of $472.74 from the city for approximately six months. This constitutes one distinct violation of ORS 244.040(1)(a).

Mr. Denison solicited and accepted the donation of private vehicles to the city for the explorer scout program. When the donated vehicles were sold Mr. Denison submitted a memorandum to the city designating the payee and the sum to be paid to the donor. Five memorandums prepared by Mr. Denison requested payments to him and/or relatives. When the requests were to be prepared, Mr. Denison was met with a conflict of interest and failed to notify his appointing authority in writing on each of the five occasions, resulting in five distinct violations of ORS 244.120(1)(c).
///
When Mr. Denison used his official position to gain the agreement between the city and his parents and then made decisions regarding maintenance, improvements and equipment acquisitions for the property, he committed one violation of ORS 244.040(1)(a).

Mr. Denison was also met with a conflict of interest when he participated in the discussions with the city officials about the agreement with his parents. However, in his discussions with the City Manager the content of the conversation was regarding the agreement and the city’s use of his parents’ property. While he did not give the written notice required by ORS 244.120(1)(c), the disclosure requirement apparently was met, but not in writing. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to recommend this one violation of ORS 244.120(1)(c).

On 6/11/04, a horse belonging to Mr. Denison’s family was euthanized. He used his position to gain the use of a city backhoe, city police car escort and a city employee to bury his daughter’s horse on a farm outside the city limits. His actions constitute one violation of ORS 244.040(1)(a).

Mr. Denison admitted, and others confirmed, that Mr. Denison took one or more laptop computers from the police department for his children’s personal use. This constituted one violation of ORS 244.040(1)(a).

There is a preponderance of evidence to indicate that Mr. Denison committed 9 violations of ORS 244.040(1)(a) and 10 violations of ORS 244.120(10(c).
///
///
///
RECOMMENDATIONS: Move to make a preliminary finding that there is sufficient evidence that Don Denison committed 9 violations of ORS 244.040(1)(a) and 10 violations of ORS 244.120(1)(c) (Motion 10).

ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS:
#PR1          GSPC complaint form submitted by Mary Johnson and received on 1/17/06.
#PR2          Copy of a printout of payments and receipts for a City of Toledo account for the Explorer Scout program under account number 026-000-405270.
#PR3          Copy of East County Community Partnership check number 1026 dated 5/13/05 payable to the Toledo Police Department for $2,740.00.
#PR4          Copy of documents summarizing account information for the Toledo Police Explorer Program account at the West Coast Bank under account number 461005746.
#PR8          Mary Johnson narrative dated 1/12/06.
#PR9          Copy of a blog from “thetoledoworkdog.blogspot.com” dated 11/8/05.
#PR10     Copy of an agreement between James and Betty Denison and the City of Toledo signed 8/16/03.
#PR14     Copy of a summary and check register for Toledo Police Explorer Program account at the West Coast bank, account number 461005746.
#PR16     Memorandum of contact with Pete Wall, City Manager, on 3/6/06.
#PR17     Copy of table showing donated vehicles sales by the City of Toledo through DAS surplus sales.
#PR19     Copy of a City of Toledo record reflecting the purchase of two HP Laptop computers on 2/26/03.
#PR20     Report to GSPC on Potential Investigation of Chief Don Denison by Don Denison dated 3/15/06.
#PR26     Copy of City of Toledo fee schedule.
#PR27     Copy of a Report on Mobile Data Systems dated 11/8/05 and updated 3/8/06 by Don Denison.
#INV1          Copy of Don Denison e-mail to Pete Wall dated 4/2/04 regarding preliminary discussions that led to the opening of the Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison account at the Toledo Branch of West Coast Bank.
#INV2          Copy of Don Denison e-mail to Pete Wall dated 6/3/05 regarding circumstances that led to closing the Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison account at the Toledo Branch of West Coast Bank.
#INV3          Copy of Polly Chavarria memorandum to Pete Wall dated 6/9/05 regarding her recollections of preliminary discussions that led to the opening and later closing of the Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison account at the Toledo Branch of West Coast Bank.
#INV4          Copy of check number 1109 from Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison account issued to Oliver Johnson on 11/22/04 for $448.55 and signed by Don Denison.
#INV5          Copy of check number 1110 from Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison account issued to Oliver Johnson on 11/22/04 for $24.19 and signed by Don Denison.
#INV6          Copy of check number 1111 from Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison account issued to Melissa Irish on 12/8/04 for $85.00 and signed by Don Denison.
#INV7          Copy of check number 1112 from Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison account issued to Carson Denison on 12/21/04 for $215.00 and signed by Don Denison.
///
#INV8          Copy of check number 1113 from Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison account issued to Bart Johnson on 12/21/04 for $100.00 and signed by Don Denison.
#INV9          Copy of City of Toledo purchase order and documents related to check number 44667 payable to Don Denison issued on 12/16/04 for $1,146.77.
#INV10     Copy of a table listing hours worked on projects, for which relatives were paid from the account identified as Toledo Police Explorer Program-Don Denison.
#INV11     Copy of a revised table showing donated vehicles sales by the City of Toledo through DAS surplus sales (revision of #PR17).
#INV12     Copy of memorandum from Chief Don Denison to Polly Chavarria dated 3/1/04 requesting payments to donors of vehicles for Explorers.
#INV13     Copy of memorandum from Chief Don Denison to Polly Chavarria dated 5/13/04 requesting payment to donor of vehicle for Explorers.
#INV14     Copy of memorandum on Toledo Police Department letterhead submitted to the city Finance Department dated 11/9/05 requesting payment to donor of vehicle for Explorers.
#INV15     Copy of memorandum on Toledo Police Department letterhead submitted to the city Finance Department dated 11/22/05 requesting payment to donor of vehicle for Explorers.
#INV16     Copy of memorandum on Toledo Police Department letterhead submitted to the city Finance Department dated 4/24/06 requesting payment to donor of vehicle for Explorers.
#INV17     Copy of a table submitted by Chief Don Denison to the Finance Department to reflect the justification and use for federal and state surplus equipment.
///
#INV18     Copy of receipts and other documents submitted by Chief Don Denison to the Finance Department to report the improvements and equipment relative to agreement with James and Betty Denison and their property.
#INV19     Investigators summary of information submitted by Chief Don Denison to the Finance Department regarding the Denison property (#INV18).
#INV20     Memorandum draft dated 6/1/06 of information from Fire Chief Will Ewing, City of Toledo Fire Department.
#INV21     Memorandum draft dated 5/31/06 of information from Herb Jennings, former Director of Public Works Department, City of Toledo.
#INV22     Memorandum draft dated 5/31/06 of information from Dale VanNatta, Waste Water Treatment Plant, City of Toledo.
#INV23     Memorandum draft dated 6/5/06 of information from Dave Wheeler, owner of W.W. Construction, Newport, Oregon.
#INV24     Memorandum draft dated 6/1/06 of information from Joe Steenkook, owner farmland hear property owned by James and Betty Denison.
#INV25     Memorandum draft dated 5/30/06 of information from Officer Ken Real, Newport Police Department, Newport, Oregon.
#INV26     Memorandum draft dated 6/5/06 of information from Lt. Dave Carey, and others with the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office.
#INV27     Copy of minutes from a Toledo City Council meeting held on 10/5/05.
#INV28     Copy of Toledo Police Department monthly reports to city council from January 2004 through December 2005.
#INV29     Memorandum draft dated 6/5/06 of information from Dr. Steven R. Brown, DVM, Newport, Oregon.
#INV30     Copy of City of Toledo Resolution Number 1150 which was approved 9/4/02.
///
#INV31     Copy of e-mail message from Polly Chavarria to Don Crabtree dated 5/15/06.
#INV32     Copy of Federal Surplus Property obtained by City of Toledo.
#INV33     Copy of Law Enforcement Support Office listing of surplus boats, canoes, generator, etc. obtained by Toledo Police Department.
#INV34     Copy of Law Enforcement Support Office listing of surplus boats, canoes, tractors, mowers, etc. obtained by Toledo Police Department.
#INV35     Memorandum draft dated 6/9/06 of information from Dr. Dennis E. Smialek, DVM, Bennett, Colorado.
#INV36     Memorandum draft dated 6/9/06 of information from Sgt. Fandrey and Maria Waldrip, Toledo Police Department.

 


PREPARED BY     



Don Crabtree                         Date
Investigator

 


APPROVED BY     



L. Patrick Hearn                         Date
Executive Director

 


REVIEWED BY     


Lynn Rosik                              Date
Assistant Attorney General

 

Default Template for Easy Text To HTML Converter