Opinion ID: 43218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jeronimus’s Performance Deficiencies

Text: On April 5, 2000, shortly after Jeronimus began his employment, Tucker 1 Head Start is an early childhood education program for three and four year-old children, after which, the children are prepared to begin kindergarten. 2 expressed concerns about the way in which he interacted with another PCOC employee. In a memo to his personnel file, Tucker recounted her efforts to resolve a conflict between Jeronimus and Elaine Dustin, a woman who was then Jeronimus’s accounting supervisor. In her August, 2000 evaluation of Jeronimus, Tucker indicated that Jeronimus met or exceeded expectations in all categories, but noted that he should work on his communication skills. On March 21, 2001, Tucker sent Jeronimus a memo expressing her concerns over several financial matters. Specifically, Tucker noted a transfer of agency funds between unrelated accounts, the failure to report to her the existence of a cash flow problem, the failure to complete correctly a line of credit application, and the delegation of research work to PCOC’s outside accounting firm. Tucker ended the letter emphasizing that “[t]hese are serious concerns, which need to be handled expeditiously.” In a May 16, 2001 memo to Jeronimus, Tucker expressed her concerns over his management of staff members. Specifically, she addressed an instance of intimidation by Jeronimus toward his staff members after they complained about him and the delegation of tasks that he should be handling. Tucker also noted that Jeronimus failed to complete properly a PCOC report. In her December, 2001 performance evaluation of Jeronimus, though, Tucker again indicated that 3 Jeronimus met or exceeded expectations in all categories; however, she also noted “[n]ot enough staff supervision. . . . [d]oes not get reports completed in a timely manner . . . [a]ttend required meetings on time [or] . . . [k]eep his staff informed.” On December 7, 2001, Tucker sent Jeronimus a memo, outlining five concerns which needed to be discussed. Specifically, Tucker noted: (1) that financial reports were consistently prepared late; (2) that Jeronimus was consistently late for meetings; (3) that monthly departmental meetings were not being held despite Tucker’s request; (4) that Jeronimus’s staff felt that important decisions were being improperly delegated from him to them; and (5) that Jeronimus reportedly had been borrowing money from staff members.
On January 2, 2002, Tucker sent Jeronimus a warning letter. In that letter, Tucker noted that Jeronimus turned in a report to a PCOC auditor with incorrect figures, blamed the error on a subordinate, and left the auditor alone in the building without informing the auditor that he was leaving for the day. In addition, Tucker noted a specific instance in which Jeronimus was not following the Head Start administrative accounting guidelines properly. Tucker concluded by adding that “incorrect figures and bad audits could cost this agency grant funds and I do not plan to let that happen. If this should occur again, you leave me no alternative but 4 to place you on suspension without compensation.” On May 13, 2002, Tucker sent a Jeronimus written warning expressing her concerns about his general preparedness. Tucker noted that Jeronimus had failed to come prepared to a meeting with a PCOC auditor. In addition, Tucker indicated that he had been untimely in submitting reports to the PCOC Finance Committee, Policy Council, and Board of Directors. Tucker concluded by adding, “I will not allow you to put this agency at risk by your lack of preparation. This is your second warning. If you do not have a satisfactory explanation, you will be placed on three (3) day suspension.”
To ameliorate a cash flow problems in the CSBG program, Jeronimus improperly let the CSBG account borrow from the Head Start account.2 In addition, he floated checks from the Head Start account while there were insufficient funds to make payment. On July 24, 2002, Tucker received notice from the bank that a PCOC check in the amount of $16,489.00 had been returned for insufficient funds. The following day, Tucker sent a written warning to Jeronimus indicating that deliberately issuing bad checks is not acceptable and 2 The CSBG program uses a different budget than the Head Start program. CSBG funds are provided by the federal government but dispersed through the Florida Department of Community Affairs (“FDCA”). 5 noting that Jeronimus had “neglected to inform [Tucker] that [he was] mailing out checks with insufficient funds.” In addition, Tucker noted that Jeronimus was not keeping in touch with staff and ordered him to have weekly staff meetings. Tucker concluded by adding that “this is the second warning that I have had to issue to you. The next step is a five-day suspension without pay.” The following day, July 26, Jeronimus sent an email to Tucker and Donna Etzel, PCOC’s human resources director, complaining that he was being “unjustly singled out for circumstances beyond [his] control,” that Tucker “was conducting a campaign of harassment,” and adding that “[t]his is a truly hostile environment. . .” After sending it, Jeronimus reconsidered because the email contained harsh language. He then went downstairs to Etzel’s office, and asked that she delete it, which she did. Tucker promptly launched an investigation into the practices within the finance department. Tucker discovered that in the months of May through July 2002, Jeronimus had, without notifying Tucker, issued 47 checks – totaling more than $50,000 – with insufficient funds, creating overdrafts in PCOC’s account.3 On July 31, 2002, Jeronimus met with Tucker and informed her that, in addition to floating checks, he had been using Head Start funds to address PCOC’s cash flow 3 Reviewing the August, 2002 bank statement, Tucker discovered that Jeronimus had issued an additional 24 checks without sufficient funds. 6 problems. Tucker then sent Jeronimus a letter informing him that Head Start funds may not be used to fund other programs,4 that PCOC’s auditor would be on site to see whether there were problems with how Head Start had been administered, and that he would be suspended without pay during the pendency of the investigation. The auditors produced a written report on August 6, 2002. In it, they found that for the period of May through July 2002, there were three instances in which Head Start funds had been improperly used for purposes not related to Head Start. Over that same period, the auditors found 72 instances (in an amount of $88,953.85 plus $1,334.00 in overdraft fees) of checks being drawn without sufficient funds to cover them.