This is a letter investigative report, with comments

on these findings, which could be summarized as

mismanagement, miscommunication and much
ado about nothing.

It is notable that the actions and events covered by this investigation took place
while then-Secretary John A. Scocos was deployed to Iraq, and his deputy,
Kenneth B. Black, was at the helm and serving as the agency's Acting Secretary.

Whoever drafted the WDVA letter clearly lacks basic

knowledge of Wis. state government.
 And again...

This is
the most
important
point of
the letter.

This shows a seriously flawed assumption on the Why couldn't WDVA officials determine this
basis of those at WDVA requesting a DOJ was resolved before publicly asking for
investigation, one that should, and clearly could DOJ's investigative involvement?
have been determined beforehand.
 ...but has no oversight responsibilities over the agency's
budget expenditures. Is the status quo best management
practice?
Stewart is not credible here, having repeatedly
advised WDVA officials including Black that these
violations were criminal and constituted
malfeasance in office. No wonder Black was silent
here.

Duly noted.

Again it is noted that the status quo OPPB has no

apparent budget expenditure oversight responsibilities.

Why was Black the only WDVA official accompanied

by WDVA legal counsel?!
 Is she trained for this role?

Perhaps not often,

but at least 1-2 times
per biennium...

This is clearly not accurate as shown later in

this letter, demonstrating either Black's
incompetence or lying.
 Such high-level communications would have had a
paper trail both on outgoing and return
correspondence, almost certainly maintained in
WDVA's OOS, and WVH-K.

Why didn't Black, Stewart, Abrahamsen ask Kloster about his recollections?
 Given the preponderance of evidence in discussed in
this letter, Black is either seriously incompetent or,
alternately, lying (for unclear motive(s)).

All of this involvement and activity would preclude most

rational people from assuming some sort of wrongdoing Why not? Is this competent,
motive -- but Black and Stewart assumed otherwise. professional, accountable, best practice?
Black not only knew, he have the order. Then
denies knowing anything about it... Again, utter
incompetence, or lying without a clear motive.
 Sounds like a lot of
miscommunication and assumptions
on all sides, but hardly anything
criminal or worthy of pursuit for
wrongdoing.

Recognizing that this is not the

statutory language, this language
clearly states a "congract" and not
"grant" or "donation" or other
disbursement.
This language does not specify the
form of disbursement.
Agreed -- this is poor judgement, and could
lead a reasonable person to conclude that
this is a violation of the applicable statutes.
However, DOJ experts found that it was not.
 None of this sounds anything like the nurse
stipend program described in WDVA's
budget request or as has been briefed by
WVH-K at Board meetings...

Since OPPB and the budget director, Abrahamsen have acknowledged they have no responsibility for
oversight of budget expenditures, only WVH-K's explanation should be accepted in this "dispute".
 Since budget expenditures are not his responsibility, on
what basis independent of WVH-K's explanation would
Abrahamsen know which expenditures were the cause?

This makes Abrahamsen sound incompetent

Agreed, it would have been easy (and and at least partly responsible for what sounds
commonplace) to justify. like a very hostile and cutthroat work
environment.
 Why has WVH-King had a "ten-year history" of needing surplus funds?
Who -- and at what level -- most appropriately should have fixed this?

This may be Abrahamsen's practice, but it is legal?

Though not common or necessarily desirable, there are regularly

agency requests to Joint Finance in budget years. Should this
decision to not proceed have been made by Abrahamsen?
Apparently this is a common practice in the agency,
acknowledged at all levels.

This is non-specific and unclear.

More assumptions and buck shifting.

 Stead wrongly assumed that the ...yet earlier, Abrahamsen told
C.O., through OPPB, monitored investigators that he advised Black
King's budget expenditures. on his own assumptions about why
WVH-K's budget was exceeded.

This assumption is despite the clear evidence

of the loss of a firetruck, citations requiring
correction, and other unprojectable one-time
events. flaws." Note no
...."ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING PROCESS AND PROCEDURE
mention of criminal or civil statutory violations, because there weren't any, and a
reasonable person would not have assumed otherwise after even the most cursory
internal review.
This can be interpreted as a sharp ...different, presumably created by OPPB.
criticism of WDVA's legal counsel. However, OPPB's "contract" is quite different
from WVH-K's "grant" in its proposal and in its
factual expenditure.

The funds were used as contemplated, and as enacted in the

budget. The only issue here is a breakdown in communication that
resulted in OPPB/Central Office being out of touch with
WVH-King's intentions and actual expenditures.
This says that Black either lied, or doesn't have a clue what the subject matter is that he's talking
about and therefore is utterly incompetent. Other, darker motives with broader power implications
are also possible if Black is lying rather than just clueless. Clueless appears more likely than
lying, given the number of witnesses to Black's personal involvement.
Black should have had Abrahamsen and OPPB involved before
he made this approval, which would have brought him into the
loop. It seems surprising that an Acting Secretary would make This suggests Abrahamsen's total
such a major decision without involvement of his budget director. incompetence. His threats of
criminality could only have had a
chilling effect on further
communications between his office
and WVH-King.

At the Commandant level, Crowley should clearly have known

this requirement.

What kind
of state
government
agency
budget
director role
is "focusing
just on
salaries"?!

This appears to be why DOJ did

not proceed with charges against This is a very serious, all-encompassing
Crowley and Stead at a minimum, charge about this situation (which took
with the likely inclusion of at least place while Scocos was away and Black
Abrahamsen and Black. was Acting Secretary)
 The fact that DOJ doesn't see
Black's contrary statements to
be intentional implies the
investigators determined he is
simply incompetent.

--not the least because sufficent defense

(unappropriated excess funds) exists that
makes prosecution unwinnable.

...but should make a difference to those

overseeing the staff responsible.
 ...at least in part because of the unjustified and
inappropriate use of the language "contract" by OPPB

This is a powerful
statement.

Very sharp words that suggest this whole inquiry

was a waste of time from an investigatory standpoint
(though not from a management standpoint).