Wackenhut: Mayor Alvarez has the story DEAD WRONG! By Geniusofdespair

DO NOT TAKE CREDIT FOR WACKENHUT MAYOR ALVAREZ....UNLESS IT IS BAD CREDIT.
In the Miami Herald report Saturday it says 5 were charged in billing scandal at Wackenhut Security firm. (Couldn't find it on-line even though page one of local section). In the article the Mayor's spokeswoman, Victoria Mallette said: "We were the first to recognize the problem and take action." I THINK NOT VICTORIA!!!!

Your Auditor was stonewalling in April 22, 2008. and April 14th I reported the Mayor and the Manager would not submit to depositions on the matter. You didn't can Wackenhut till April 2009. March 20th 2008 I reported that the County tried to marginalize the whistle-blower. On March 7, 2008 I reported that the county tried to sue itself on this Wackenhut mess. In March 2008 I accused the county of dragging its feet or hiding something, begging for the release of the audit, almost a year after the channel 6 original report.

The audit was FINALLY released May 8th 2008. So don't say you were first! Please don't dare say you were first. The original lawsuit was filed August 4, 2005, claiming up to $22.5 million in overbilling. The expose was aired on Channel 6 in May 2007. Your audit was released 3 years after the lawsuit. And, after all this, Wackenhut is still allowed to do business with the county! The Mayor can't take credit for anything good in this damn mess, the deal was putrid, a giveaway. I, unlike the Mayor's office, do not have a short memory. I wrote 13 posts on Wackenhut.

Wackenhut Settlement Update. By Geniusofdespair

Moss, Sosa and Martinez voted against the settlement. Some others held their nose but voted for it. There was no discussion. It passed. Seijas was absent. Wackenhut can now seek more business with the county. That sucks.

Readers, if you want to watch a SPECIFIC issue on the county meetings webcam, you CAN now. Just hit on the the issue in the window below the video screen and the video will jump right to your issue. It is a handy addition to the meetings as many issues are held out of order. If you are a MAC user, forget it, you won't see the screen when you hit the link.

Don't Like the Wackenhut Deal. By Geniusofdespair

Wackenhut was accused of billing the County for no-show guards to the tune of between $3.3 to $5.8 million dollars. The money damages that County Commissioners would vote on tomorrow are not bad, however, in cases of fraud there is triple damages so they should be more, but I am not going to quibble on damages. What I don't like is the part where: Miami-Dade would end its bid to keep Wackenhut from doing business with the county. According to the Miami Herald the settlement says:

It (the County) would promise not to use the facts of this case against Wackenhut on current or future contracts...The county also agreed to clarify its final audit by Miami-Dade's chief auditor Cathy Jackson, saying her comments ``should not be construed to mean that the principals or management of Wackenhut engaged in fraud.''

What?? Wackenhut over-billed for years, why should we give them any more business? Bad deal Burgess. Anyway, didn't Wackenhut change their name, and you know how short memory is in this County. Their lobbyist for this settlement is Jeffrey T. Foreman.

We wrote about the Wackenhut story many times, here are three examples:
Wackenhut 1 - Wackenhut 2 - Wackenhut 3

Also NBC 6 is following the story and they have posted a video. Michelle Trimble was a whistle blower on Wackenhut, she would get $1.25 million if the deal is approved, and she is featured in the NBC video.

Finally Wackenhut Gets Canned. By Geniusofdespair

Tired of being overbilled, Miami-Dade officials are set to ban a security firm from county contracts
Wackenhut says: "We are shocked that the County Manager has falsely accused us of intentionally overbilling the county."

Jeff Burnside Channel 6 Investigative Reporter said:
"Our investigation of Wackenhut continues with this blockbuster: Miami Dade County Mgr George Burgess told NBC 6 today that he is firing Wackenhut from all existing county contracts (about $20 million per year) and banning them from all future contracts with the county. He said this is as a result of the systematic overbilling and fraud mainly on the multi-year lucractive contract to provide secuirty on Metroraiol and Metromover. County will throw support behind whistleblower lawsuit against Wackenhut by fired guard that could force Wackenhut to pay as much as $100 million, 20% to the guard, fees for her attorney, and the rest to the county."

We have a Wackenhut File in our index (11 posts) and have been following this story. Thanks for giving us notice of the breaking news Jeff! So I agree with Burgess on something now...that was a quick switch from this morning. The County should have done this long ago...but hey it is never too late to do the right thing. Guess who is a lobbyist for Wackenhut: Carrie P. Meek. Kendrick Meek was their lobbyist on the Metrorail Contract and RFP in 1998-99. Other Wackenhut Lobbyists and Wackenhut's press release:

(and maybe this is why it took so long for the County to see the light, look at this list)

ARMANDO GUTIERREZ
NONE 1/28/2008
Open

SERGIO PEREIRA
NONE 1/28/2008
Open

DREW LEVINE
METRORAIL SECURITY CONTRACT 11/6/1998
Open

RENE PEDRAYES
METRORAIL SECURITY CONTRACT 11/6/1998
Open

JOSEPH BOBER
METRORAIL SECURITY CONTRACT RENEWAL 3/18/1999
Open

RENE PEDRAYES
METRORAIL SECURITY CONTRACT RENEWAL 7/12/1999
Open

ELIJAH PENDLETON
MTERORAIL CONTRACT RENEWAL 7/27/1999
Open

LESLIE A MEEK
NONE 4/15/2004
Open

LESLIE A MEEK
4/15/2004
EDDY ESQUIVEL
1/4/2005
Open

CHRISTINE L WELSTEAD
REPRESENTING WACKENHUT IN LITIGATION 1/18/2006
Open

CARRIE P. MEEK
CONTRACT SECURITY WORK IN MIAMI DADE COUNTY 5/22/2007
Open

ELIJAH PENDLETON
NONE 6/14/2007
Open

ANGELA C DE CESPEDES WENKE
REPRESENTING WACKENHUT IN LITIGATION 3/3/2008
Open

CHRISTINE L WELSTEAD
REPRESENTING WACKENHUT IN LITIGATION 4/17/2008
Open

AUGUSTO E MAXWELL
NONE 5/6/2008
Open

On April 10, 2009, G4S Wackenhut made the following statement:


"We have just recently received the County Manager’s memorandum along with the final audit report from the Miami-Dade Audit and Management Services (“AMS”) Department. We will be reviewing the final audit in detail and will respond accordingly.

However, we are shocked that the County Manager has falsely accused us of intentionally overbilling the county. AMS has admitted that it deviated from generally accepted auditing standards, yet the County Manager has stood behind this inaccurate report and his actions will have far-reaching implications involving the public’s safety and security.. G4S Wackenhut is the premier security solutions provider and has a proven record of service excellence with the County’s transit, juvenile assessment centers, and special taxing districts. AMS, with a history of mismanaged audits, has ignored the mountain of evidence provided to refute the serious allegations.

The County’s audit department has continually ignored and refused to acknowledge the compelling evidence presented to them by G4S Wackenhut. The County has turned down our request for an unbiased and competent third party review of the audit to resolve the matter with our assurance we’d stand by the decision; instead, they have decided to be the judge, jury and executioner.

The County Manager’s allegation that the County was intentionally overbilled is false and has not been substantiated, even after their own 3-year investigation. His decision to cover up the facts and not continue doing business with G4S Wackenhut is based on our refusal to meet his demand to pay over $3.2 million because we will not be held hostage and will vigorously defend our position and integrity. Experts have substantiated our contention that the AMS report is based on a grossly biased and fatally flawed audit investigation and this should cause the citizens of Miami-Dade County great concern. It will be harmful to all our employees assigned to county contracts who proudly perform their responsibilities with courtesy and professionalism; the safety and security of the public at large by lowering the standards expected of security personnel; and, our company who has nearly a two-decade track record of service excellence with the County.

Until we have the opportunity to evaluate all options – including legal remedies – and provide an appropriate response we can not comment any further. A press conference will be held in the very near future to answer all questions. G4S Wackenhut has shown great restraint through this arduous and frustrating process and we look forward to revealing what actually has been going on throughout this process to the citizens of Miami-Dade County."

Okay Wackenhut: Spill the beans! We citizens can't wait to hear it. And, while you are at it, tell us why are you changing your name to G4, phasing out Wackenhut?

Wackenhut: County Audit Has Been Released. By Geniusofdespair

The long awaited Audit by Cathy Jackson, was released today on just one Wackenhut Contract (there are 2 with problems). Audit: Wackenhut overbilled Dade millions. With triple damages (The county's False Claims Act includes a provision for triple damages) we could be talking about close to $100 million in damages that Wackenhut is responsible for in the "Phantom Post" billing on two contracts.

Wackenhut: Deposition of County Auditor - STONEWALL (Cathy) Jackson. By Geniusofdespair

Q. Do you have a duty to Dade County, Dade County's taxpayers to detect fraud in the operation of county government?
Answer from Cathy Jackson, Director of Internal Auditing for Miami-Dade County:
"No, I don't feel that I have a responsibility."

So, the Chief Auditor for the County will report fraud if she stumbles on it, but she won't go looking for it, try to detect it.

This deposition is about our hard earned tax dollars -- perhaps millions of dollars that the County was being billed by Wackenhut for phantom guards. A whistle-blower lawsuit to recover damages for the County is being blocked at every turn by guess who? The County. Lawyers for the whistle-blower requested this deposition, and they got 150 pages of run around with a few interesting nuggets.

For instance, this came out:

Q Apart from law enforcement bodies, have you presented your findings to any other person in county government?
Answer from Cathy Jackson: Yes.
Q Who?
George Burgess, County Manager.

You will remember in my last post on Wackenhut, April 14th, County lawyers were trying to block the deposition of Burgess saying that Burgess did NOT have to be deposed since the information could be obtained from other sources. Well, where are the "other sources" if Cathy says no one else knows about it and she remains mum? She asserts in the depo that no Commissioner knows of her findings.

In a rare glimpse of some daffy double-talk and major stonewalling, here are a few pages from her 150 pages of testimony. And, after all of this we still don't know when we are getting that County Audit which is over 30 months overdue. For your info, (A) is Cathy "Stonewall" Jackson and (Q) is a lawyer question (this is straight from the actual deposition):

2 Q To whom do you believe you have a responsibility
3 in performing this audit?
4 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
5 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
6 A I don't understand that question.
7 Q Do you have a responsibility to the taxpayers of
8 Dade County to detect and determine fraud?
9 A I don't think I have a responsibility, but what I
10 do have a responsibility is if I'm asked to conduct audit,
11 if I conduct audits and there's something that's improper
12 that's discovered from those audits, I do have a
13 responsibility to report that information, and I take that
14 responsibility very seriously, and I have a very good track
15 record for doing just that.
16 But I'm not prepared to come here before I issue
17 an audit report and make any representations or conclusions
18 until that report is issued, and whatever findings that we
19 do have will be in that report.
20 Q So you don't believe that you have a duty to the
21 taxpayers of Dade County? Let me break it down. Strike it
22 and I'll start over.
23 Do you have a duty to Dade County, Dade County's
24 taxpayers to detect fraud in the operation of county
25 government?

120
1 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
2 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
3 A No, I don't feel that I have a responsibility.
4 My audit, my department is not formulated just to detect
5 fraud. You know, our audits take on a myriad of forms.
6 The Inspector General is more so formulated for
7 that purpose, to do forensic.
8 However, if in conducting an audit, if we find
9 anything improper, be it fraud, intentional, unintentional,
10 I do have a responsibility to report that, and I take that
11 responsibility very seriously and we do that very
12 diligently.
13 Q Well, you were tasked to perform that or given
14 that responsibility to detect fraud in September of 2005.
15 Have you reported to anyone at Miami-Dade County or any
16 taxpayers in the ensuing three years that you have detected
17 any fraud?
18 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
19 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
20 A Sir, where is it stated anywhere that I had a
21 responsibility to detect fraud? I don't understand what
22 you're -- I mean, I think you --
23 Q To your understanding, does anyone at Miami-Dade
24 County have a duty to detect fraud?
25 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.

121
1 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
2 A Sir, that's a very loaded, open-ended question,
3 and I'm not going to get here, you know --
4 Q It's a yes or no question.
5 A Well, it's a yes or no question, but it's a
6 loaded question, and I think I've answered my question on
7 the record. You're asking me the same question on and on
8 and on, okay.
9 I take my job very seriously, and if I do an
10 audit and I come across fraud or anything that's improper, I
11 have a responsibility to report it, and I do just that.
12 Q All right, and to whom have you reported any of
13 your findings other than Wackenhut?
14 A I have not reported my findings to Wackenhut.
15 That's your representation.
16 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
17 THE WITNESS: That's not my representation.
18 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Join on the county's
19 objection to that last question.
20 Q Have you reported any of your interim findings to
21 any of the county commissioners?
22 A No, I have not.
23 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
24 Q Have you reported any of your interim findings to
25 anyone out outside of Audit and Management Services?

122
1 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
2 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
3 A I have.
4 Q To whom?
5 A I have to law enforcement bodies, and I will not
6 discuss what I have disclosed to them, but I have disclosed
7 to them concerns that I have had with regard to the audit.
8 Q Apart from law enforcement bodies, have you
9 presented your findings to any other person in county
10 government?
11 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
12 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
13 A Yes.
14 Q Who?
15 A George Burgess, county manager.
16 Q And when did you make those findings known to
17 him?
18 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
19 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
20 A I have conversations with Mr. Burgess every now
21 and then and I will make him aware of myou know, what my
22 concerns are, and I have also showed him documents as I
23 customarily do with an audit to give him a sense of what's
24 going on.
25 Q Give me a sense of how often it is that you have

123
1 these discussions with Mr. Burgess about this audit.
2 A No, it's not that often, but I can't recall the
3 number of times, but I have discussed this audit with him.
4 Q Is it more than ten times in the 900 days that
5 you've been doing this?
6 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
7 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection.
8 A Whether it was ten times within 904 days, I don't
9 recall, but I do recall --
10 Q Do you know if it was --
11 A -- I have discussed things that I felt for
12 clarification as I'm supposed to do with the county manager,
13 and I've expressed to him issues as it pertains to this
14 particular audit.
15 Q Did you initiate the contact with law
16 enforcement, or did they initiate the contact with you?
17 A I initiated the contact with law enforcement.
18 Q All right.
19 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: I'm sorry, could you
20 repeat that last question, the court reporter?
21 (THEREUPON, THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER WAS READ BACK BY
22 THE COURT REPORTER.)
23 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Thank you.
24 Q All right. Do you have a general schedule of how
25 often you report the interim observations or concerns that

124
1 you have regarding this audit to George Burgess?
2 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
3 A No.
4 Q Do you meet with him every month about this
5 audit?
6 A No, I do not.
7 Q Do you meet with him every quarter?
8 A I have no frequency schedule that I can present
9 here. Like I've said, I have discussed this audit with
10 George Burgess.

Some more gems:

22 Q Do you keep a calendar?
23 A Yes, I do.
24 Q All right, and would your calendar have the dates
25 of meetings with Wackenhut?

36
A No, no, because I -- no.
2 Q So you keep -- does your calendar make notations
3 of meetings that you have?
4 A They do.
5 Q All right.
6 A At times, not all the time. If it's a formal
7 meeting, it does, but if it's an informal meeting, it does
8 not.
9 Q So if there's a formal meeting between you and
10 Wackenhut, it would be noted in you calendar?
11 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
12 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
13 Q Correct?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q All right. Have you had informal meetings with
16 Wackenhut?
17 A What I deem to be informal, yes.
18 Q What is the difference between a formal and
19 informal meeting?
20 A When we get to the stage in the audit whereby I'm
21 going to be discussing my report findings with them, that is
22 a formal meeting because I will notice that meeting, and the
23 purpose of that meeting will be to discuss the findings, you
24 know, and the contents of our report draft, you know, when
25 it's produced, so that we could discuss that with them.

37
1 That's what I consider to be a formal meeting.
2 Q So have you ever had --
3 A If I'm just requesting --
4 Q I'm sorry.
5 A -- clarification, you know, of some information
6 or making a request for information, I consider that to be
7 informal.
8 Q All right. Have you had a formal meeting with
9 Wackenhut?
10 A No, I have not.
11 Q Well, how else would your -- strike that. Is
12 there any way other than looking at your notes by which we
13 would determine when you have had meetings with Wackenhut?
14 A No, I guess unless you ask them.
15 Q All right. Do you recall -- I understand that
16 you've had several meetings with Wackenhut.
17 A Uh-huh.
18 Q Have you had any meetings in 2008 other than this
19 meeting in February?
20 A There may have been.
21 Q Do you know when it occurred?
22 A No. I'm not sure if there was a second meeting
23 in January -- I'm sorry, a meeting in February or if it was
24 a meeting in January, but you know, I, you know, I had, I'm
25 quite sure I've had one meeting, one more meeting in 2008.

38
1 I'm certain of that. I do recall that.
2 Q How is it you are certain that you had another --
3 A Because I don't meet with Wackenhut very
4 frequently, and though I don't remember all the times I've
5 met with them in 2008, you know, I don't think I've had more
6 than one, to the best of my recollection right here today.
7 But again, if that information is very important,
8 you know, and it's something that I have to produce, I'd be
9 glad to, and I continue to want to state here for the
10 record, we want --
11 MS. WALDMAN ROSS: We've heard that you want to
12 release the audit report. We've heard that over and over
13 again, that when it's released, we can have the information,
14 you're happy to give it to us.

And then there is a lot of this type of exchange:

Q All right. What are the issues that you
6 discussed with Wackenhut on, at the other meeting that
7 occurred in January or February?
8 A As I've stated for the record, the meetings that,
9 the matters that I discussed were audit matters. I have no
10 reason to meet with Wackenhut other than to discuss audit
11 matters.
12 And as I've stated before, our audit report, when
13 it's released, you can have access to whatever information
14 that we have as pertains to this audit.
15 Q All right. I'm asking you specifically the
16 communications that you had with Wackenhut on this other
17 meeting that you're certain that occurred in 2008.
18 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
19 MR. GONZALEZ: I'm going to object to the form of
20 the question as asked and answered.
21 I'll also object and assert my previous objection
22 that if, and I'll instruct you not to answer any substantive
23 issues that are contained in the audit work papers and audit
24 notes in an ongoing audit.
25 A I've discussed audit matters.

42
1 Q And what specifically about your audit did you
2 discuss with Wackenhut?
3 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form, asked
4 and answered.
5 MR. GONZALEZ: I'm going to have the same
6 objection as previously stated and to the previous question.
7 A And I have the same answer.
8 Q I understand that you -- I'm asking you -- your
9 answer was you discussed audit matters. I'm asking you
10 specifically what those matters are.
11 A And I've --
12 Q If you're not going to tell me what those matters
13 are, I just need to have that on the record for purposes at
14 some later point addressing them with the Court.
15 A I discussed audit matters.
16 Q All right. What are the audit matters that you
17 discussed with Wackenhut?
18 MR. GONZALEZ: I think I've instructed her not to
19 answer because if the audit matters are pertaining to work
20 papers and notes, I think at this point you have probably
21 whatever you need for the Court, so, and I'm assuming since
22 you're saying audit matters over and over again, that she
23 cannot answer without going to the contents of an ongoing
24 audit and what is contained in the audit work papers and
25 notes.

And then there is...

10 Q Well, do you know what percentage of the total
11 documents that you obtained that you audited? Did you audit
12 100 percent of Wackenhut's performance under this transit
13 contract for the three-year period, or some smaller
14 percentage?
15 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form.
16 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to form.
17 A An audit is not about auditing 100 percent
18 performance. That's why it's an audit.
19 But I cannot tell you the percentage that I've
20 audited.
21 Q Why not?
22 A Because I can't. I don't quantify in terms of
23 percentages.
24 Q Well, does somebody in your office of Audit and
25 Management Services know how many of the documents that were

103
1 presented to you have been examined?
2 MS. DE CESPEDES WENKE: Objection to form, asked
3 and answered.
4 A Well, if it is, it's a part of our work papers,
5 and once those work papers are made available for public
6 inspection, I'm quite sure that information, if it's in
7 there, will be made available.
8 Right now today, I have not personally quantified
9 the amount of documents that we've looked at.
10 Q Well, when you sat down initially with Wackenhut
11 in August of 2006, did you tell them what portion of the
12 records that you intended to examine?
13 A As I've said before, Counsel, that any
14 discussions that I've had with Wackenhut, they pertain to
15 audit matters, and I am not prepared to discuss specifically
16 what I've discussed with Wackenhut.
17 Q So again, you're not going to discuss anything
18 that you communicated to Wackenhut in this meeting of August
19 of 2006?
20 A I'm not prepared to discuss anything that's
21 associated with work papers that I have obtained in
22 connection with my audit or anything that's the subject
23 pertaining to that.

And, so it goes: Round and round in a circle game (Joni Mitchell).

Wackenhut: You won’t believe the County’s response this time! By Geniusofdespair

In way of background material, I have included snippets of an April 11th Editorial by the Miami Herald below. Hit on image on left to enlarge it.

The County has been stonewalling on Wackenhut over-charging them for years. The attorney for the whistle-blower, who also represents the county, is trying to get to the bottom of the over billing, he subpoenaed County Mayor Alvarez and County Manager Burgess. The county legal dept. is trying to block their depositions! I have one big: WHY?

The reason, they say:
That "the Mayor and Manager Burgess cannot uniquely provide relevant information which cannot be obtained from other sources." Maybe the Mayor can get off the hook. But Burgess? Come on, as you can see below, his staff member, Cathy Jackson, ain’t talking (against the advice of a county attorney). Who would know what is going on if not Burgess if, his underling, Jackson, won’t talk. This is bullshit pure and simple. MY GOD MAYOR! GET BURGESS TO TALK!! And, release the damn audit!

In an April 11th editorial the Miami Herald said, Answers needed on overbilling claims:

“Ms. Jackson compounded the mystery last month when, despite the advice of a county attorney, she refused to answer questions about the audit during a deposition for that lawsuit. Ms. Jackson says she doesn't want to comment on an audit that is still in draft form. The audit involved sifting through reams of paperwork from Wackenhut, which may explain why it's taking so long. Still, Miami-Dade residents are owed some answers, soon.

This isn't just about the money in question or Wackenhut's reputation, it's about the level and quality of security at Metrorail stations. Former Wackenhut employees have said that they faked time sheets, agreed to work longer shifts but then left early after rush hour and indulged in other falsehoods.”

and:

“The audit arose out of charges in 2005 that Wackenhut overbilled the county. The company claims that it has not overbilled and that the charges are coming from disgruntled former employees. Former Wackenhut employees have responded by filing a lawsuit that seeks to reclaim millions of dollars in overbillings under the county's False Claims Ordinance. It allows residents and whistle-blowers who expose fraud to collect damages. If the plaintiffs prevail, the outcome could be tens of millions of dollars because the law provides for triple damages. The county would receive some of that.”

P.S. The Herald Editorial could be wrong about this:
"In 2005 the county at the last minute pulled a $4.8 million contract it was about to award to Wackenhut because of the allegations."

However, according to a New Times article published March 29, 2007 it was a MULTI 7 YEAR contract:

"In January County Manager George Burgess miraculously recommended that the security firm Wackenhut receive a general service contract worth $4.9 million a year, for the next seven years, to guard several government sites.”

Wackenhut: The bullshit continues, And an update on Miami Dade Trains in Japan By Geniusofdespair

Was Dade transit overcharged? Audit still a secret
Thirty months after it began, an audit on Metrorail's security billing is still pending.

"Auditor Cathy Jackson sent those findings -- which suggest the security firm may have overbilled the county -- to Wackenhut that month. They were never publicly released. Nineteen months later, the audit hasn't come out, the impact of the draft remains unclear and Jackson could face jail because she won't discuss it. Jackson's report, begun some 30 months ago, is at the center of an unusual lawsuit that accuses Wackenhut of widespread fraud for allegedly overbilling Miami-Dade millions of dollars for unguarded ''ghost posts'' on the transit system and at the Juvenile Assessment Center."

What disturbs me about this article, the tight lips of Burgess and Alvarez - they should be as outraged as we citizens are:

"County Mayor Carlos Alvarez and Manager George Burgess also refused to discuss the audit, the contempt charges, suit or criminal investigation."

Read our article on the subject:
Miami Dade County Sues Itself.

On another digusting note,
MIA train's cost taking off. According to the article in today's Miami Herald:

"The multimillion-dollar automated people mover, exercised in Japan for use at Miami International Airport's North Terminal, will cost tens of millions more.

The people mover's 20 cars, each 40 feet long, will travel by ship from Japan to Miami, and should arrive next month, said airport spokesman Greg Chin. About half of the track is in place at the North Terminal. Meanwhile, the project's costs keep mounting.

Sumitomo's original contract, when it was hired by American Airlines in 2002, was for $86,588,000. It was raised to $114 million last year and is expected to cost an additional $25 million to $35 million, Cosper said." And,

"Miami-Dade County commissioners will be asked Tuesday to approve a 57 percent increase for consultants Lea + Elliot, from $11.2 million to $17.6 million. The funds will be used to extend the contract, because of North Terminal construction delays."

And some of you annoying comment posters will try to tell us that MIA's "escalated cost from $500 million at its inception in 1993 to $2.853 billion today" does not come out of our tax money it comes out of fees charged at the airport. My answer is: You always pay in the end. Whether it is higher airfare or subsidies to cover short-falls because our airport fees are too high and non-competitive: We pay...big time...all the time!

Wackenhut: Good Citizen Marginalized by County Staff. By Geniusofdespair

Wansley Walters director of the County Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) in an email called the hero whistle blower, Michelle Trimble, on Wackenhut's over-billing of the county: "a disgruntled employee."

According to Cedric Windell Johnson, a special agent for the County Inspector General, who has worked for the Inspector General since 2000, said: In December of ‘04 “We had gotten a complaint on our hotline regarding the project manager from Wackenhut who was basically running the security at the JAC, and that there was an allegation of misuse of a lot of time as it related to the contract between Wackenhut and the County."

Johnson said in the 183 page depostion dated February 28, 2008 that Ms. Walters wrote in an email to Susie Torriente, Chief of Staff to George Burgess, that regarding the Scott Hiaasen article printed Sept. 28, 2005 in The Miami Herald, “The lawsuit was filed by a disgruntled employee who used to work here, and I think that she is just throwing anything out that she can.” Wansley Walters further stated:

“Actually, there was a supervisory employee from Wackenhut holding jobs at both the JAC and Parks and Recreation. We turned the issue over to the Inspector General, whose staff did a thorough review of the Wackenhut billing. We are waiting for the final report, but the OIG has met with Wackenhut, and they will be returning money to the County for that employee. The person was ultimately terminated by Wackenhut. Kathy may want to get with Chris Mazzella as well. I think they're about to release their report. Any assistance Kathy (Wilson? Auditor) needs, she will have. Thanks, Wansley”

However, the deposed Investigator Walters disagreed strongly. He said of this email:

"I remember discussing this, but I think Wansley (was) she erred in her statement stating that the OIG -- that we were going to issue a final report. We weren't near a final report, and the information about us thoroughly reviewing those documents, I think she's incorrect in that as well. As far as I was concerned, I don't think we had a thorough review done, because we would not have pursued a more thorough formal investigation of the allegations made by Ms. Trimble until we had gotten an audit. That was the bottom line. The audit would have dictated how much further we would have investigated this. We didn't want to go and start interviewing people with Wackenhut until we had a pretty good idea if we had a major problem; if it was more than David Mayorga; was it other officers, to really lock this thing in until we had an audit done of those time sheets and the logbooks."

By the way, in the 183 page deposition, Investigator Johnson, in instance after instance, found Michelle Trimble’s information credible. Walters did a character assassination (probably fed to her by Wackenhut) of someone trying to do the right thing... someone saving the County countless dollars to boot! By the way, Cathy Jackson is not even doing an audit of the JAC. Her audit, almost 2 years overdue, is only of transit. So this particular issue at JAC: No one is auditing except Wackenhut! We need to break this chummy staff/private business love fest.

More testimony:

3 A. The allegation was that a number of Wackenhut

4 contract officers were receiving hours that they hadn't

5 worked for a specific time frame, so in that case, we

6 would assign our auditors or engage our audit team or

7 even, you know, if we didn't engage an audit, an outside

8 audit entity or our team, in this case, we requested that

9 Wackenhut provide us with some information, but what we

10 really were trying to achieve is to see if we could get

11 some information on actual times worked, comparing the

12 green books, which we didn't know anything about that

13 until, you know, Ms. Trimble told us about the green books

14 during her initial referral of the information to us, and

15 the time sheets that were the formal documentation used to

16 build the account and all, and take that as a lead.

17 Any audit report and then do our

18 investigation -- interviews; any other information we need

19 to gather; background; so on.

20 Q. Was Ms. Trimble ever able to provide you with a

21 single instance where she could show you that a JAC

22 Wackenhut security guard had been paid for time that he

23 had not worked?

24 A. She did.

Also see: Wackenhut: County Dragging its Feet at Best, Hiding Something at Worst. and: Wackenhut: County Sues Itself

Miami Dade County Sues Itself! By Geniusofdespair

This is a rare glimpse into Miami Dade County without politics. Without politics, the County is forced to sue itself!

This post follows up on the Wackenhut story I posted yesterday. One of the whistle-blowers, sued on behalf of the County to get back funds from Wackenhut. The whistle-blower and its legal team are not influenced by Wackenhut’s dream team of lobbyists. They don’t have Commissioners breathing down their neck nor do they have County Manager Burgess orchestrating “Deals” or perhaps "blocking audits." The legal team and the Wackenhut whistleblower just want to recover some funds for the county (as much as possible) because they get a cut. They are motivated by pure profit. One motive.

Why would the county sue this other team in 2006? What is really going on here? Why wouldn't they want as much money as possible for us, the taxpayers. The County should be vigorously pursuing our money without outside influences. What are they doing instead: Trying to tie the hands of the other legal team suing Wackenhut on behalf of the county. That is insane.

You all know by now that I like Mayor Carlos Alvarez. However, Carlos: You have to look at this. You have to know that you can’t keep averting your eyes. And, incredibly Burgess actually recommended the award of another contract to Wackenhut for about $35,000,000 while this was going on. It would have gone through if Rebecca Sosa didn't stop it. This one smells too bad Mr. Mayor. You have to look at it.

P.S. A reader just posted this, I did not know the nature of the lawsuit, this might be accurate or not: "The County sued itself to keep from releasing preliminary audit findings which were embarrassing to the County and Wackenhut."

Yesterday's post: Wackenhut: County Dragging its Feet at Best, Hiding Something at Worst.

Wackenhut: County Dragging its Feet at Best, Hiding Something at Worst. By Geniusofdespair

Three Month NBC 6 investigation of Wackenhut Over-billing County (aired May 23, 2007)

It is old news -- it was reported in May 2007 that Eric Rowe, a former supervisor at Wackenhut for 10 years, said it was common for the company to bill Miami Dade County for “Ghost Posts”. Other employees say “There was fraud across the board.”

However, this scandal did not end with the Channel 6 investigation. It is still going on.

There is still a lawsuit pending, which was filed August 4, 2005, that claims $17.5. to $22.5 million worth of over-billing on guarding our transit, rails and other stuff by the Wackenhut Security Company. So we knew as early as August 2005 and it was brought to light again in May 2007 in the embarrassing exposé on Channel 6.

It is almost a year since the Channel 6 report. What has happened since? Where is the final County Audit? Sources tell me that the County is letting Wackenhut supply the information for their audit. That makes sense: handing the investigation into the fraud over to Wackenhut and accepting their documentation. The final audit should have been out ages ago and Wackenhut's alleged greedy fingers should not have a hand in the audit or anything else with regard to this investigation. Let's get to the bottom of this Mayor Carlos Alvarez. Kick your Manager Burgess in the butt on this one and ask Cathy Jackson for the final INDEPENDENT audit now almost a year and 9 months over-due. Let's put an end to this scandal and get our hard-earned tax dollars back from Wackenhut.

Boondoggle? I think so, and maybe a lot worse if it is true that County Staff is dragging their feet and botching up the audit. P.S. Just found CARRIE MEEK is one of Wackenhut's lobbyists and look at this article in New Times, there is way more to this than meets the eye:

Wackenhut gets whacked - Published: March 29, 2007

"In January County Manager George Burgess miraculously recommended that the security firm Wackenhut receive a general service contract worth $4.9 million a year, for the next seven years, to guard several government sites. The deal seemed set to pass, in spite of Miami-Dade County's pending lawsuit alleging fraud by the company, and a county audit of Wackenhut that has been promised, and delayed, for nine months.

But at a recent Budget and Finance Committeee hearing, County Commissioner Rebecca Sosa spoke up, asking why any company under investigation would be awarded such a meaty contract.

"Any time that I see a message from the inspector general, I try to pay attention," she told New Times. With Sosa's prodding the commission awarded contracts to Alanis Security and Delad — two companies that are not being investigated for fraud.

Cathy Jackson, the head of the county's Audit and Management Department, did not return two phone calls for comment. The release date for the audit remains a mystery." — Calvin Godfrey

Note the date this was published!!! Also note Lobbyists for Wackenhut:

CHRISTINE L WELSTEAD
REPRESENTING WACKENHUT IN LITIGATION 1/18/2006

CARRIE P. MEEK
CONTRACT SECURITY WORK IN MIAMI DADE COUNTY 5/22/2007 (STILL OPEN)

ELIJAH PENDLETON
NONE 6/14/2007

ARMANDO GUTIERREZ
NONE 1/28/2008

SERGIO PEREIRA
NONE 1/28/2008

ANGELA C DE CESPEDES WENKE
REPRESENTING WACKENHUT IN LITIGATION 3/3/2008

Now that I see the Lobbyists I understand a lot more.

Carrie Meek: Remember my advice for the sake of your son: STAY HOME!

Wackenhut/Florida Power & Light: LOL. By Geniusofdespair

You can go see YouTube of FP&L Juno Beach Protest over Sleeping Wackenhut guards at nuke plant on Carlos Miller's blog. Apparently Carlos, an Eye on Miami reader, has a blog about his arrest for taking photographs of the police. If you scroll down, after you hit the link, you will find the YouTube video.

We don't have this kind of fun in Miami. Where are all our fun people?

Well, Miami had one protester at the Public Service Commission Meeting today (about the two additional nuclear reactors at Turkey Point). A reader sent me a shot of this student that was protesting at the meeting held at Miami Dade College. It was reported that other "fun people" in attendance were Mayor of South Miami, Vice Mayor of Florida City and someone from Homestead -- all there to cheer on FP&L. Flunkies!

Now you can rest easy: It was ONLY vandalism at Nuke Plant in Miami. By Geniusofdespair

Do you know what vandalism is? According to Webster’s it is willful or malicious destruction of or defacement of public or private property. Now if it is willful isn’t that the same as having intent (the Miami Herald said the FBI said they were not prosecuting because they have no evidence of criminal intent.) Well, I am not going to argue legal terms. But, I am going to say that throwing a baseball through a store window is not the same as drilling a hole in a cooling system pipe at a Nuclear Power Plant. The first one is vandalism and the second one is downright frightening. It is like saying water boarding is controlled swimming.

In the article today in the Miami Herald they mention that the FBI assumes it was an out of State contract worker who drilled the hole. What kind of security clearance did he have? How are all these people getting on the Nuke sites? First the NRC finds numerous sleeping Wackenhut guards. And I recently read a report about food workers using their access material to gain access at Nuke Plants after they had been fired. I think if I got the right job, I could easily get on the site and do some (Oh, what are we calling it again) "vandalism". This is so very, very stupid: and you – Yes YOU - the public who are reassured that the war in Iraq is protecting you from terrorists at home: You really don’t give a shit do you? You have a sense of security that defies logic. I hope you have Iodide pills. And they have a new berry flavor formulated for children now. I am sure that puts your mind at ease.

We only need "one" terrorist to slip through the helter skelter security and to tell you the truth, with 4 or 5 sleeping guards being reported, and a $100,000 FBI award being offered for “Vandalism”, I am convinced security sucks at Turkey Point.

Book on Fictional Terrorist Attack at Turkey Point. by Geniusofdespair

Editorial Review of - "Terrorism: Turkey Point" (Paperback) by Clyde E. Roach (Author)
Book Description:
"A fictional account of a terrorist act points out the very real possibility that our security measures, since the demise of the World Trade Center Towers, may be woefully inadequate.

An innocent young Arab boy is used by suicide bombers to attack the electrical generating plant at Turkey Point. Problems of placing an atomic bomb in a nuclear facility are highlighted in detail. If you feel safe, don’t read this." http://www.amazon.com (Thanks "Pulp Fiction" for telling us about the book, we will have to send it to the commissioners).

Here is the CSI TV Show clip of terrorists attacking Turkey Point. It seems like I am not the only one worried about a terrorist attack at Turkey Point. You know, I don't think terrorists have much of an imagination, i.e. At flight school a terrorist asked: "Can you teach me how to fly, but don't bother teaching me landing." It is nice of us to explain what they should do in this case (on TV,in a book and on the NRC website) so they don't have to take a class again. It would appear that terrorists have been afforded a wealth of information, the best of which: They should just go to work at Wackenhut for easy entry and a good night's sleep (see my post yesterday about the real-life guards caught sleeping while guarding the Turkey Point Nuke Plant.)