BOC acts outside of protocol

Looks like some more back room deals from the new "transparent agency" that some of the commissioners have been preaching about. There is a process in place to remove a ED. Looks like to circumvent that process, which puts comments on record, this board succeeded in forcing out the ED and payed him hush money to avoid a lawsuit at the expense of hunters. Oversight is a good thing. Our legislative body has been overstepping its role in regards to oversight lately but this is a case where oversight should bring about hearings on this fiasco. 
 
By Brad Bumsted and Michael Hasch
Published: Saturday, March 8, 2014, 12:01 a.m.
Updated 10 hours ago
 
HARRISBURG — The Pennsylvania Game Commission proposed paying $220,000 to its retired executive director when he threatened to sue the agency, according to a letter from its chief counsel to the state Office of the Budget.
The Game Commission released a letter on Friday that was sent Dec. 26 by Brad Bechtel, the agency's chief counsel, to the Corbett administration saying the payment to Carl Roe is not compensation but a “settlement agreement in lieu of litigation.”
Roe of Carlisle retired Jan. 17. He served as executive director since 2005.
No decision has been made on proceeding with or abandoning the payment that one of Gov. Tom Corbett's top lawyers this week termed an “improper severance agreement.”
According to Bechtel's letter to Brian D. Zweiacher at the Office of the Budget legal office, the Game Commission board adopted a policy manual in December 2011 that “set forth the job duties” of the executive director. The board began “discussing the possibility of terminating Director Roe's employment” in late 2012.
“Among the reasons provided were concerns over Director Roe's job performance and whether he met the board's expectations for the individual in that position,” the letter states.
“While those discussions were taking place, Director Roe made it known ... that he believed he had fully complied with the job responsibilities set forth in the Policy Manual and that if he was removed from his position he would file ... a suit for wrongful termination.”
The board and Roe agreed to the $220,000 payment “in order to avoid litigation on this issue,” the letter states. In return, Roe agreed to voluntarily retire and “release all claims he could have brought against the board,” according to the letter.
“While it may seem unusual, I have analyzed previous situations similar to this one and believe the agreement is within a reasonable realm of settlements for these types of cases and is in the best interest of the commission,” Bechtel wrote.
The planned payment to Roe was disclosed on Friday by the Tribune-Review based on a letter from the governor's lawyers to the attorney general. Roe could not be reached.
The Attorney General's Office submitted questions to the Game Commission about the payment and will make a decision based on “form and legality,” said spokesman Joe Peters.
The office of state General Counsel James D. Schultz has asked the commission to clarify the payment because “it appeared on its face to be a severance agreement” in violation of the state's administrative code.

“This appears to be an issue between the former executive director and the Board of Game Commissioners and is independent of any agency decisions or programs,” Game Commission press secretary Travis Lau said Friday.
“Again, the sportsmen are taking it on the chin,” said Randy Sanducci of Robinson, president of the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania.
“No matter what we do, half of the people are going to love you and half of them won't,” said Bob Schlemmer of Export, the Game Commission president. He declined questions on the payment and referred them to Bechtel.
Roe's final salary as executive director of the Game Commission was $121,116. He left with a lump-sum cash withdrawal of $89,926, representing his contributions to the pension system plus 4 percent interest since he joined the agency in 2001, state records show. His annual pension from the state is $29,236, according to state retirement board records.
Roe spent 30 years in the Army, retiring as a colonel.
The proposed $220,000 payment was intended to “induce” early retirement and get Roe to “agree to terms of confidentiality,” the general counsel's office contended in a Jan. 30 letter to the attorney general.
“It shows this agency acts like a rogue agency, not under control of anybody,” said Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, chairman of the House State Government Committee. “Outrageous” actions such as this spur legislative interest in establishing some state oversight of the Game Commission, he said.
Metcalfe favors requiring commission regulations to be approved by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, which considers other state agencies' regulations. He said he would support merging the Game Commission with the Fish and Boat Commission. A legislative research report on that idea is slated for release March 19.
“Rogue” was a description also used by Rep. David Maloney, R-Berks County, a member of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, who supports state approval of regulations but not merger of the agencies.
“Why would you pay a man a quarter-million dollars after he was paid a salary and he resigns? Why is that? Since when is there severance pay?
“There's such loose oversight of this agency,” Maloney said.
Joe Kelley, a retiree and hunter from New Alexandria, said perspective is needed.
Critics “jump on the Game Commission for $220,000 when there's the Turnpike Commission wasting hundreds of millions of dollars.” Kelley asks why, despite indictments of top turnpike officials for alleged corruption, there isn't an ongoing state investigation of the turnpike, another independent agency.
And former Liquor Control Board CEO Joe Conti, 59, left the LCB in February 2013 and began drawing his pension but was rehired almost immediately as a temporary “emergency” employee for $80 an hour until July. He and two other former top LCB officials reportedly have been under investigation by the Ethics Commission for accepting gifts and favors from vendors with business before the LCB.
“They (Game Commission) do a lot of good things with game management and conservation,” Kelley said.
Brad Bumsted is state Capitol reporter and Michael Hasch is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

Wayne, 
 
The BOC has a process in place to remove a ED if they so choose. I am absolutely correct in the position. If this new board wants to be transparent, then the process should have been followed. That was all I was saying. 
 
No doubt the more deer crowd wanted him gone. So be it. Not my problem. My issue is a process and protocol were not followed to keep the debate from the sportsmen that are paying for this shut up package. 
 
And I would add, which you will find great joy in, this is a good case where oversight is truly warranted. I hope there are hearings on this. 
 
One member of our state assembly has already proposed legislation lowering the cost of hunting licenses to compensate the hunters for this severance package. 

wayne c
 
They wanted Roe gone, they were perfectly within their rights to tell him so and accept his "retirement" as opposed to being publicly FIRED.   YOU may have preffered a different route, but it wasn't your call.   The only issue here is the payment.   If it were not included in the little "deal" there would be no harm no foul.  And that looks to have come about due to Roes threats to sue and pgcs legal counsel advice in response.

 
No doubt that legal council advised this board to go this route. That is what happens when the BOC does not want to go through the process to remove a ED. Unfortunately, because this BOC prefers back room deals, the sportsmen of this state have to foot the severance. If they wanted him gone, get rid of him the way a BOC is supposed to get rid of a ED.
 

I know you have personal vendetta along with your pfsc allies against some of the board, I have read your ravings on the pfsc board over such ridiculous things as pfsc not getting their way on the early squirrel season....

 
Not sure why you keep bringing this up after being told multiple times. I am not a PFSC member nor am I affiliated with them. I don't even think the PFSC asked for the early squirrel season. Of course, character assassination is your preferred mode of operation, Dan, even after being told truthful information. Most expect it from you.
 

One commissioner daring question the increased crossbow harvest...

 
That is his right to express concern. I have relayed the facts to him on this issue which directly dispute his claims.
 

and daring to mention implementing a reasonable age limit somewhat above 1 yr old. (lol)

 
The MY program has been proven safe with very few violations. All a age limit would do is satisfy those that are afraid someone will shoot their deer. You would be one of those people.
 
 

Reread the part I quoted in blue.  You may have missed it before I edited it in.  If that was the message conveyed to the board, then I have no idea how you can disagree with me legitimately, or how you could possibly think that pgc staff is not to blame here.

My issue is a severance package that we must pay for because the BOC did not wish to go through the proper protocols to remove the ED. Especially with a agency that claims to be more transparent than ever.
 
Of course council advised this. They would be faced with a big lawsuit that maybe council was afraid that the plaintiff would win because this board chose to act outside of proper protocol. 

So you do not feel a BOC should remove a ED as their protocols and procedures dictate? I have no problem if Roe was removed the way he is supposed to be removed. That is how our agency is supposed to operate. Then it would be the transparent process that this current board has been preaching about. 

"So you do not feel a BOC should remove a ED as their protocols and procedures dictate?"
 
The guy said he would retire.   They let him.   Sounds like proper procedures to me.
 
Proper until he threatened lawsuits.
 
The commissioners are supposed to be humble public servants....volunteers.   Not legal experts.

wayne c
"So you do not feel a BOC should remove a ED as their protocols and procedures dictate?"
 
The guy said he would retire.   They let him.   Sounds like proper procedures to me.
 
Proper until he threatened lawsuits.
 
The commissioners are supposed to be humble public servants....volunteers.   Not legal experts.

LOL. Now that is a good one

And the problem with that statement is what exactly?
 
Btw, don't brand me as a boc supporter.  I have had more than my share of issues I have disagreed with them on and have demonized them regularly over the years.   This is just not an instance, based on whats known to this point, to be a time where it looks to be deserved.
 
I look at these things very fairly and balanced.   I'll bash the board...and have...when they screw up, and Im just as quick to dole it out to the pgc staff when deserved.
 
You on the other hand, have totally ignored the agencies involvement, made no complaints of THEIR large role in this, nor said one word about your previous HERO, ol' quick Carl, threateing to sue, and then wanting to march off into the sunset with a cool quarter mil of our money.
 
"Not sure why you keep bringing this up after being told multiple times. I am not a PFSC member nor am I affiliated with them."
You didn't read correctly.  I said you and your pfsc allies.   I didn't say you were a member.   Likeminded without doubt.   You parrot their stance verbatim for years on pretty much every issue, lay around on their message board doing the same 24/7/365, and send emails to legislators and commissioners basically mirroring theirs totally...  So yeah.  My statement was accurate.
 
Now Im going to have to risk missing your repetitive posts, offering up nothing to support your contentions, Im goin' to do some work Ive been putting off.
 
Have a good'n.

wayne c
 
Btw, don't brand me as a boc supporter.  I have had more than my share of issues I have disagreed with them on and have demonized them regularly over the years.   This is just not an instance, based on whats known to this point, to be a time where it looks to be deserved.
 

 
Huh?? I have never implied such a thing. You are about as far as a PGC or BOC supporter as they come. 
 

You didn't read correctly.  I said you and your pfsc allies.   I didn't say you were a member.   Likeminded without doubt.   You parrot their stance verbatim for years on pretty much every issue, lay around on their message board doing the same 24/7/365, and send emails to legislators and commissioners basically mirroring theirs totally...  So yeah.  My statement was accurate.

 
LOL. Clueless. I have had searing communications with those that I assume you feel are my allies and have called out the org for what I feel is a lack of leadership on certain issues.
 

Have a good'n.

 
You to. Till the next flare up which I suspect will be pretty quickly.

After thorough consideration of this matter, and having gotten a few more facts and also views on the matter, I will say this,  I feel that a hearing on this issue would be warranted if not "needed" to air out these grievances.   While it still appears to me that legal advice given was faulty and possibly intentionally so, I will reserve final judgement pending more facts on the matter.
 
I have been hearing that a wide range of folks from many backgrounds would like to see a hearing held on this issue.
 
Personally, I would like to know 1. Whos idea was the payment.  I think its pretty clear it was legal counsels, but I would like to see that publicly stated during a hearing.  
2. I would like to know for indisputable fact, did Carl or did he not have any real legal standing for any potential lawsuit. From what little I know of the position, I have always believed no.   But I am no legal expert.  But the governors office legal counsel seems to agree.     If Roe did not, it would appear that pgcs own in house legal counsel should've known something so incredibly basic, and might point to possibility of corruption.  

About legal standing, even in at-will states, the waters are muddy.  
Maybe the commissioners were given this to read by counsel:
 
http://www.trc-law.com/articles/pdf/EM-Term-At-Will.pdf
 
Not following their own processes and procedures could be grounds for a lawsuit from a terminated employee.  
 
So, the BOC should have followed the process and let the chips fall, they could have terminated w/o following the process which surely would have led to a lawsuit costing who knows how much, or, as they chose option 3, pay "hush" money and hope the issue goes away.  
 
IMO, they should have chosen the first option.  Would have been the best chance of getting the end results they wanted.