Opinion ID: 2642350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Federal Monitoring Visit

Text: In November 2009, federal monitors from the Department of Labor undertook a compliance review of the WIA grants in Maine, including of the LWIB. The monitors found that Winslow's job description was not in compliance with federal program requirements1 because, absent an express agreement between the LWIB 1 Following the visit, the Department of Labor ultimately issued a report to the Maine Department of Labor outlining its findings. The report was issued on April 13, 2010, slightly over -3- and Aroostook County, it was improper for Winslow to report to the County rather than to the LWIB. On November 19, the federal monitors conducted a preliminary exit interview at the office where Beaulieu and Winslow worked, which Winslow attended. After the exit interview, federal monitor Tim Theberge went to Beaulieu and told him of the monitors' findings. Beaulieu then spoke to Winslow and instructed her to type up her notes from the exit interview meeting and email them to him. These exit interview notes included a section on findings, which stated, as item number five: My job description indicates I am supervised by the County Administrator, however, I work for the Board, who supervise me. This is reflected in 117D3Bii.2 The exit interview notes included a separate section on Areas of Concern. They also stated that the federal monitors would meet with the State during the week of January 6-7, and that the state would then draft a formal response, after which there would be a formal federal response. As to the local report, officials would be given until January 30 to resolve these findings. a month before Winslow initiated this suit. 2 Apparently the exit interview notes' reference to 117D3Bii is a reference to section 117(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. That section reads: The functions of the local board shall include the following: . . . (ii) Staff. The local board may employ staff. Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936, 957-58 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 2832). -4- Then, also at Beaulieu's direction, Winslow sent the exit interview notes to Barry McCrum, the LWIB Chairman, along with Christopher Gardner and Norman Fournier, the two co-Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEOs) of the LWIB. The CLEOs (and not the full LWIB Board) are responsible for designating a WIA fiscal agent. See 29 U.S.C. § 2832(d)(3)(B)(i)(II). Those exit interview notes reporting on the federal monitors' findings, circulated at Beaulieu's request, form the initial basis for Winslow's assertion that she is a whistleblower. Defendant NMDC is a separate entity, not involved in the noncompliance findings regarding Aroostook County. At a December 2 public Aroostook County Commissioners' meeting, Beaulieu informed the commissioners of the report from the federal monitoring visit. The minutes of the meeting reported that one of the findings [of the compliance review] is that the Executive Director should, under the law, report to the [LWIB] Board, not the County Administrator. After the minutes were adopted at a later County Commissioners' meeting on December 16, they were posted online in full for public review. During this period, Beaulieu was in discussions with the two CLEOs and the Chairman of the LWIB about preparing an agreement making a different entity the new fiscal agent for the LWIB. The proposal was that defendant NMDC be the fiscal agent. For this purpose, around December 15, Beaulieu met with Robert Clark, the -5- Executive Director of NMDC and also a member of the LWIB Board, to discuss the transition. In preparation for that meeting, Clark completed a draft transition plan, which included as part of the process Notification of staff termination -- December 31. On December 28, Beaulieu forwarded to Clark the then-current draft of the letter that he had previously sent to the CLEOs for them to send to the Maine Department of Labor. In that email to Clark, Beaulieu stated: Note how I dealt with the staffing issue. It leaves it up to you. The two CLEOs of the LWIB did not object to the staff termination proposal. On the broader topic of the transition to a new fiscal agent, Beaulieu was also in communication with the CLEOs, including in a series of December 29 emails. Beaulieu indicated that federal law required there be an agreement between the LWIB and NMDC, enclosed a draft, and stressed: this agreement is mandated; it is not optional. I just want to make sure we are in compliance, so we don't jeopardize [losing] our local program. (emphasis added). Winslow played no role in these discussions. In these December 29 emails, Beaulieu and the CLEOs agreed that the LWIB Board needed to be kept informed of the proposed fiscal agent agreement. Beaulieu suggested that a notice to the full Board by the CLEOs and the Board Chair would be the most appropriate route. On the topic of how to communicate the -6- information to the full LWIB Board, Beaulieu explained the position he was in: It is generally not my function or prerogative to communicate directly with the Board. That is a function of the Board Director [Winslow]. As a practical matter, one of the findings of the Feds, which said that the Board Director should not report to the County Administrator, has made my ability to supervise the concerned individual difficult, if not impossible, to manage. So, as it relates to the Board Director, I can happily suggest actions, but I am unable to ensure compliance with the same. While Beaulieu was dealing with the LWIB Board leadership to effectuate a solution to the federal findings, Winslow took steps on her own. On December 30, Winslow visited Clark's office unannounced to drop off a CD of WIA financial policies. While there, Winslow held out her hands, looked up at the ceiling, and said So, where are you going to put me? Clark responded that they were looking at doing something different. Following this encounter, Winslow believed that it was her responsibility as Executive Director to inform all LWIB members of her view of the events. To that end, without obtaining permission from Beaulieu, the LWIB Chairman, or the two CLEOs, on December 31, she sent all of the LWIB members and interested parties (including Beaulieu) an email she authored entitled Opportunity. While it acknowledged that it was the CLEOs who had authority as to designating the fiscal agent, it nonetheless informed the other board members about their responsibilities as to -7- the fiscal agent. The email also mentioned the proposal that the NMDC become the fiscal agent. It then outlined the large amount of work ahead, assuming that she would be the person working with the board. The Opportunity email then addressed her proposal that the LWIB newly schedule an interim meeting, stating: If you are interested in holding an interim board meeting prior to our next regularly scheduled meeting on February 11, please reply to all on this memo to request it. According to our Board by-laws, if five Board members request an interim meeting one will be scheduled. This Opportunity email provoked responses. After receiving Winslow's email, Beaulieu emailed Chris Gardner, a CLEO, and said: This is insubordination. [LWIB Chair] Barry McCrum is upset. It was the Chair's responsibility to schedule meetings, and the next meeting had already been scheduled. And in a later email exchange with McCrum, Clark wrote about the Opportunity email: If I was her boss she would be fired immediately for insubordination. Beaulieu scheduled a meeting with Winslow on January 4 to reprimand her for sending the Opportunity email. At about nine that morning, in advance of the meeting, Beaulieu emailed McCrum, the LWIB Chairman, and the LWIB CLEOs the reprimand memo that he planned to give Winslow at the meeting. He did not send it to Clark. That memo objected to the Opportunity email in that it -8- essentially solicited interest in an interim board meeting . . . without the knowledge or approval of our Board Chair, Barry McCrum. It termed the email unprofessional, inappropriate and in direct contradiction to proper protocol and stated that Winslow had created an embarrassing situation for the Board, the County of Aroostook and the business sector in both counties, in particular. At 11:30 that same morning, after he met with Winslow, Beaulieu emailed McCrum and the CLEOs, stating that he had a long, productive meeting with Winslow, and that he had decided to rescind his earlier memo to her. Winslow was copied on this email. The next day, on January 5, Winslow sent to Beaulieu, McCrum, and the CLEOs, and addressed to the Aroostook County Commissioners a response that outlined her objections to Beaulieu's memo, now rescinded. In relevant part, Winslow's memo read: The memo you were copied on yesterday from Doug is an outrageous attempt to slander me. There is nothing embarrassing to the County of Aroostook, nor to any of you, because I performed my job duties and responded to requests for information from Board members. The information I provided (as requested), was what Federal Law says, and what the Board of Director's By-laws say. There is nothing there that should have been an embarrassment, and certainly nothing that is a secret. McCrum forwarded Winslow's letter to Clark later that day. On January 6, Chairman McCrum forwarded Beaulieu's original reprimand email to Clark, to give Clark some context for -9- Winslow's January 5 memo. In reference to Beaulieu's memo, Clark responded: Well, that's all true!! McCrum then responded: Hard to argue with the truth.