Editorial: Forgery allegations diverted attention from true story
I ran into another person over the weekend bemoaning the accusations of alleged forgery that occurred during the first Dubois County Commissioner meeting this year.
It is interesting to hear that story being the focus of attention when it was only a small part of the whole scenario I witnessed that day — so small that I didn’t report it in a DC Free Press story at all because it was inconsequential to the possible misuse of public funds that discussion revealed.
But that small part of the story has become a focus for some because it hasn’t been portrayed as accurately as it should have been.
Here is what happened.
As the commissioners went through the process of electing the new president of the commission, Commissioner Doug Uebelhor nominated Commissioner Randy Fleck. Commissioner Larry Vollmer then piped up that he couldn’t support Fleck for the presidency due to Fleck’s involvement in a road being paved on the county’s dime.
That involvement is well detailed here.
After Vollmer’s statement, Fleck immediately pulled documents from a file folder he had with him at the meeting and stated those documents proved that the commissioners approved the paving of the road. He handed Vollmer one of the sheets which Vollmer glanced at briefly before handing it over to County Attorney Art Nordhoff Jr. Then, Vollmer stated that if his signature was on a paper approving the paving of the road it had been forged.
Nordhoff set the paper down after a glance at it.
The discussion continued back and forth for several moments with Vollmer insisting his signature had been forged if there was a document directing the highway department to pave the road.
Finally, after Fleck kept insisting that the paper he had handed Vollmer was the document that approved the county paving the road, Vollmer took a moment to read the three paragraphs of the document and exclaimed, “This doesn’t say a damn thing about authorizing to chip and seal the road.”
And it didn’t.
Here is the document in question that Fleck presented as proof the commissioners had signed off on having the county pave the road.
It seems that the story has been twisted from the beginning. Vollmer later is quoted as apologizing for making accusations his signature had been forged, but in reality he didn’t do anything wrong. The commissioners did not approve the county paving the road.
It is well documented how that occurred.
And if the letter that Fleck portrayed as proof the commissioners approved the county paving the road had actually said that, then his accusations may have had merit.
What is being ignored and misreported is the fact that the highway department paved a road outside of the procedures established by the subdivision ordinance at the request Commissioner Fleck.
Granted Fleck has a budget to pave roads in his district and he has discretion to work in that budget.
If I am a developer and I want to split up some land and sell it to have homes built, I am responsible for the road improvements required by the county to develop that subdivision. This is expensive.
But if Fleck did nothing wrong, then that means I can run for commissioner and if I were to win, I could have the county pave the road on the taxpayer’s dime, saving me tens of thousands of dollars to bring it up to code.
In light of these events, Commissioner Uebelhor has recommended the meetings now be recorded and the commissioners recently heard from a contractor offering to install an audio/video system for about $3,500.
I guess a $45 digital recorder could have put this all to rest, but then again, two media companies did witness it.
This what I thought the original stories alluded to when they first came out. The stories that followed made me think I must have misunderstood something. Shouldn’t there be an investigation by a gov’t agency into this? This seems pretty important to get straightened out right away.
To your last statement, agree. Not sure why they haven’t done this years ago like most city and town councils do. I know of at least one local that has been recording their meetings since (before) 1996 – not to “catch” anyone in any act of impropriety, but for just such as this and similar “he said/she said” issues that might be called into question, which is bound to occur. Better yet, why doesn’t the local Jasper TV station get on the ball and cover these meetings like they do with Jasper and Huntingburg?
This is a serious issue with implications not only detrimental to Mr. Fleck, but the trust and respect of the office. I agree an investigation is warranted of Mr. Fleck’s involvement in the matter. Even in the best case, if it is found Fleck had no involvement other than lacking due diligence, that is cause enough for his removal. Mr. Crane, if you can not advise as to whom complaints should be directed, perhaps an article on the appropriate order of impeachment for local representatives could be useful for the concerned citizen?