I am a retiree in Port Orange and I have been following the blog on the administrative time issuance fiasco that has been recently an item of concern for some time. I watched last Tuesday’s council meeting, and after much consideration of what I heard regarding the Roger Smith settlement and what was communicated at that meeting, I have a number of valid questions that I would like to ask, and get the feedback of others citizens on.
It was communicated that Ken Parker was questioned by police and gave testimony that although he did not specifically authorize the administrative leave that Mr. Smith issued to his subordinates, he felt that Mr. Smith’s intentions were good, and that he truly believed that he did have that discretion.
It was also communicated on Tuesday at the meeting that Mr. Parker said he was aware of the administrative leave that Mr. Smith had previously issued, and that back in 2012 he spoke to him about it and told him to desist from issuing anymore leave. Mr. Parker did not reprimand , terminate, or expose what Mr. Smith had done at that point in time. Seeing that no disciplinary action was taken by Mr. Parker at that time toward Mr. Smith, and that shortly thereafter Mr. Smith was assigned to Public Works as the Interim Public Works Director, and the issuance of administrative leave according to records had ceased and desisted from that time forward, what exactly was Mr. Smith being investigated for, or why was he forced to resign?.
Parker’s statement that he told Mr. Smith to stop issuing the time back in 2012 while not taking any disciplinary action against him and making a statement to the police to this effect is prima fascia evidence that by implication and practice Mr. Parker had given Mr. Smith full amnesty for any transgressions that had occurred prior to 2012. Since their were no additional incidents of the transgression of administrative leave issuance, conventional wisdom and logic would lead to my following questions.
- 1. If Parker’s statement was that he knew about Mr. Smith’s issuance of administrative leave why did this become an issue in the C.R.I. payroll audit?
- 2. If Parker Knew about Mr. Smith’s issuance of administrative leave back in 2012 and effectively gave him amnesty back then why was Mr. Smith forced to resign?
- 3. If Parker knew about the administrative leave back in 2012 and did not reprimand or terminate Mr. Smith for it why did the city conduct a police investigation on Mr. Smith?
- 4. If Parker knew about Mr. Smith’s issuance of administrative leave back in 2012 and effectively done nothing about it doesn’t that mean that Parker is responsible for all of this?
- 5. If Ken Parker knew about Mr. Smith’s issuance of administrative leave back in 2012 and gave him a free ticket on it back then what immediate action is the mayor and city council going to take against Ken Parker to see that he is held fully responsible, punished, and makes full financial restitution for what was communicated on POG TV last Tuesday night?
Do we need to establish a citizen’s committee to review all this that is made up of prominent citizens that really want to get to the bottom of all of this?