The investigation revealed that the supervisor was informed in December 2012 that there was a potential systemic error in data being used as the basis for certain County bills.  The supervisor obtained specific information about the potential error and distributed it to subordinates and co-workers but did not follow up with them to determine the extent and scope of the error. Despite having knowledge of the potential for significant impact, the supervisor did not perform a financial analysis to determine the extent of the problem before authorizing the issuance of incorrect bills the following month, bills which impacted approximately 29,000 County households.  The significance of the billing error was immediately obvious to other department employees who investigated the matter after the bills had issued.

 

              The investigation revealed that the supervisor never discussed the extent of the billing errors with the head of the department prior to May 15, 2013.  Even after the incorrect bills had been mailed and discovered to be in error by a number of other department members, the supervisor was continuing to allege that there was no substantial problem with the billing.  It was ultimately determined that approximately 60% of the bills in question had been issued in incorrect amounts.

 

             The investigation also showed that when the supervisor was approached by County employees who had learned of the billing errors before the problem became known to the public, the supervisor checked their accounts and credited them with refunds where required based on the supervisor’s stated policy of acting only when the supervisor received a specific complaint. 

 

            On June 23, 2014, 265 days after the investigation began, the Commission voted to find probable cause and directed that a report was to be issued pursuant to its deliberations.  Two hundred eighty-three days after the initiation of the investigation, the Commission notified the supervisor in a written probable cause report that it found more probable than not that the supervisor violated Section 2.03.104A of the New Castle County Code of Ethics.  The Commission provided the supervisor with an opportunity for a hearing.  The supervisor responded to the report disputing its conclusion of Ethics Code violation, contending that the supervisor’s failure to take appropriate action was “human error”.  The supervisor did not request a hearing but raised a procedural bar to further proceedings because the probable cause report was not issued within 270 days of the initiation of the investigation.

            New Castle County Code Section 2.03.104, subsection A, prohibits a County employee from engaging in conduct which, while not constituting a violation of Section 2.03.103(a)(1) [conflict of interest], undermines the public confidence in the impartiality of a governmental body with which the County official is or has been associated by creating an appearance that the decisions or actions of the County official or governmental body are influenced by the factors other than the merits.

 

            The Commission has previously stated that Section 2.03.104(A) prohibits the creation of an impression in the reasonable member of the public that an official or employee’s “official action is affected by personal interests which impair his or her competence, integrity and honesty. “An improper appearance is created when a reasonable member of the public “with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, [would hold] a perception that the [employee’s] ability to carry out [official duties] with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.” Advisory Opinion 13-07.