Secretary of State Scott Gessler Accused of Harassment, Retaliation by Ex-Office CFO

Categories: Politics

scott.gessler.in.office.550x300.jpg
Mark Manger
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler.
The former chief financial officer for the Colorado Secretary of State's Office is accusing Secretary Scott Gessler of harassing her, retaliating against her and eventually demoting her after she "began to push back on the financial mismanagement" she reportedly saw in the office. Heather Lizotte took issue with Gessler's use of the office's $5,000 discretionary fund and federal grant funds meant to improve state elections, according to a lengthy claim notice filed with the Colorado Attorney General's Office.

See also: Scott Gessler is always right...right?

According to the notice, Lizotte began working for the secretary of state's office in 2003 and got excellent performance reviews for many years. The trouble started shortly after Gessler took office in 2010, the notice says. Gessler made headlines for wanting to moonlight at his previous law firm because, he claimed, the secretary of state's salary wasn't enough. Meanwhile, the notice says, Gessler didn't always provide receipts in connection with his use of the office's $5,000 discretionary fund; at the end of fiscal years 2011 and 2012, he also asked Lizotte to give him all of the money left in the fund.

heather.lizzotte.facebook.jpg
Heather Lizotte in a photo from her Facebook page.
Lizotte told Gessler's staff "that the casual practices being used were not appropriate," the notice says. In a November 2011 e-mail to two staffers, Lizotte wrote that all expenditures from the discretionary fund "should have supporting documentation (for example meal receipts etc.)" and that memos for "blanket expenditures" are not allowed. Lizotte's insistence on the rules, the notice says, caused "ongoing tension" between her and Gessler.

Lizotte claims the tension grew worse after she testified before the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission and a Denver grand jury about Gessler's use of the discretionary fund, including paying for a trip to Florida to attend an election-law conference of the Republican National Lawyers Association and the Republican National Convention.

However, a transcript of Lizotte's testimony before the commission shows that she didn't question Gessler's request for the remaining discretionary fund money -- even though he didn't provide any receipts, just a memo requesting the funds.

"I didn't raise it with the Secretary because I look to him as an elected official," Lizotte said, according to the transcript. "It was a memo signed and dated by him. And he is representing that he incurred expenses on behalf of the office. And I look to him as an honest person. And so I went ahead and reimbursed him."

The Independent Ethics Commission found that Gessler's use of the fund violated ethics rules. A Denver District Court judge upheld that conclusion.

Although the grand jury found no probable cause that a crime had occurred, it criticized Gessler in its report, writing that his use of the funds was "not prudent."

Recently, the state ethics commission okayed an upcoming trip by Gessler to Las Vegas for this year's Republican National Lawyers Association election-law seminar. Gessler is a speaker, and the commission voted to allow him to accept the association's offer to pay for his travel and lodging costs for one night.

Continue for more on Lizotte's claims.


My Voice Nation Help
88 comments
crystaljespin
crystaljespin

It appears that Gessler is a classic bully boss. It is hard to tell in this comment section who has real personal knowledge of the situation in this office and who doesn't, but with Gessler's documented brushes with ethics and the public trust, I say I would probably put my money on Ms. Lizotte's version. 

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

How odd that the party of witch hunts would get so baby hurt when they get caught being corrupt again.  Corruption is the defining characteristic of the conservative movement.  Or is lying the defining characteristic....?

brookly.k.bailey
brookly.k.bailey

Wow! Could this story be anymore one sided? The reason reporters should never write about personnel issues is because employers cannot fully defend themselves. I'm betting this employee is a poor performer and rather than taking personal responsibility for her subpar performance she decides to blame her employer. This reporter should know better. I even wonder if this state employee has the credentials for the job or was simply promoted up through the state ranks. Perhaps this is just a perfect example of The Peter Principle   

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

Yet another corrupt republican.....

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

This story confirms that Gessler either was utterly heedless of the Law, or deliberately violated it in a failed effort to discredit the Ethics Commission.  

supportgoodemployees
supportgoodemployees

The sad thing about this situation is people are not taking into account Heather's work history. She has not been in this role for only Scott Gessler and she had great ratings for her previous directors. Why now with him is there performance issues? Were all the people she worked for since 2003 just idiots or maybe could she be right for calling out a dishonest politician?

patriotgames7_4
patriotgames7_4

So the story here is what?  A marginal at best employee is held accountable for repeated poor performance and ill informed decision making. And when she is called out on it, she leaves work without notifying supervisors, she undermines her boss to other employees, and demands a workplace investigation to cover up her own failings. Was there really a $2m error?!? It's too bad that she is protected by a State process that allows malingerers like her to hang on and only get their pay justifiably reduced while continuing to be a squatter in the office that their very presence makes hostile. I bet that workplace is just a real picnic now with her back and everyone having to constantly watch their back! Do the taxpayers a favor Heather and resign before they uncover more of your shoddy work and make a real case to fire you. 

rjt1019
rjt1019

Ahhhh. ellendumm... Yep.. the "dumm" sums it up... Again get your facts straight on this... You weren't in the meeting and if anyone needs to go it Heather Lizotte. Someone who is truly bringing a bad name to the public sector. Unfortunate that you liberals are just as bad as the right wingers... Tow the party line regardless of the facts.

ellendumm
ellendumm

What? Gessler is a vindictive jerk? True, that part isn't new - but very consistent with his behavior for 3 3/4 years. Time to show him the door - his social skills along should disqualify him from ever darkening the public sector door again.


Bye-bye!  

rjt1019
rjt1019

@crystaljespin This article link that came out today on the Westword Blog may help you get more facts about the situation. To sum it up: The approximately $2M budget mistake (just for 1 Fiscal Qtr) and a number of other pretty important financial mistakes were verified by a third party accounting firm resulting in demotion.The harassment claims were already found to be false by an investigating third party company. Read for yourself but the harassment charge just seems to be an attempt to extort previous bad press on Scott Gessler to get a settlement (yeah, more of our tax $'s out the window on a frivolous lawsuit).

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2014/08/scott_gessler_heather_lizotte_follow.php

 

hg51732
hg51732

@brookly.k.bailey What is the basis of you comment that this woman is probably a poor performer?  There isn't one fact to back up that statement other than possibly your own personal bias.  Did you read the article, or just scan it?  If you read the article, you would  have seen that there was proof to discredit your assumption about her.  She has been a state employee for years, and she has received excellent evaluations from prior administrations; she is forced to testify against Gessler in front of the Ethics Committe and the Grand Jury.  The Ethics Committee deemed Gessler to be unethical (twice), and the Grand Jury used strong language to sanction his actions.  Now all of a sudden this employee who for years has been excellent is demoted for poor performance right after she is FORCED to testify against Gessler.  None of that seems a bit odd or suspicious to you?  Your writing suggest you are an intelligent person, so why would you automatically jump to the conclusion that she has to be a poor performer when there is nothing to back that up.

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@RobertChase The age old question about the cult....are they stupid or corrupt.  Most answer conservatives are both, and somehow proud of it.

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@supportgoodemployees It's the same crap DPS has pulled when they lie to get rid of experienced (expensive) teachers.  Both are dishonest politicians. 

mmitchell7899
mmitchell7899

You are commenting on social skills? Good thing you don't work there or I guess this woman would file a complaint against you. But, you don't actually work anywhere do you?

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 @crystaljespin Not thoroughly convinced. I am not a fan of the Mountain States Employers Council. They tend to favor the employer. If another third party had conducted this investigation I might be open minded. MSEC? Uh-uh. I don't know the third-party accounting firm but this statement:


"offered no written explanation" for an approximately $2 million difference in annual projected revenue between October and December 2013. Lizotte, meanwhile, claims that it's not uncommon for her department to revise the yearly budget as more information becomes available."


Doesn't actually prove she did anything wrong. It only indicates there was no written explanation for a discrepancy in annual projected revenue.  I would expect more info than that to actually prove she was incompetent and worthy of demotion. 


A male employee whose sole time in service was at the beginning of Gessler's reign, well, where do his loyalties lie? Other employees (was there only one more talking)…. well, usually in dysfunctional offices there are  more than one person in the conflict. In fact, employees often mob a target when they see she is vulnerable. Most employees will try to avoid the situation and some will pander to the boss to save themselves.


In offices headed by extremely skillful bullies, the bully can keep his/her behavior secret. They hide themselves very well. So lack of witnesses doesn't by itself prove a thing. I think Gessler is one of those whose own outward behavior and actions during his time in office have demonstrated that he is not a reliable judge of anyone else's character. "Competent" and "ethical" won't  be descriptors used in his biography of how he managed himself as SOS. Bully will be, though. A skillful bully can damage the spirit and competence of another person to the point that it has a negative impact on the target's ability to perform her job. Not enough info here for me to be convinced.


As for Staiert…she was fired herself and has a sexual harassment claim against Littleton. But of course, hers is valid, so SHE says. Bet her previous employer wouldn't say so. Employers always deny and defend and bring in the tax paid attorneys. Why do you think Gessler will be any different? Remember, she's one of those other employees now who needs to save herself.


The new article is a little more detailed, but is still not completely convincing. The biggest flaw in the conviction of Ms. Lizotte is the big guy himself. Gessler. He pretty much poisons everything he touches.  If but for him….



rjt1019
rjt1019

@hg51732  You are completely missing the point and proving you are clueless or just as inept in your own position (probably at the state where you have lunch with Heather daily). The performance of a manager comes down to maintaining highly qualified or at least qualified individuals to work for you. When a manager loses quite a few of those types of people over the years and in each exit interview they target Heather as the reason they are leaving... Umm... That would tell you there is a problem with that manager. Unless all of those highly qualified or at least qualified employees simply just have it out for Heather. Also to answer your question on why previous administrations have kept her around, it is simple, she had highly qualified folks around her doing her work for her (over delegation of her own responsibilities). The problem was they all quit or retired. Then over the past 3 to 4 years she couldn't keep a single highly qualified individual in those positions for more that a year at most. Funny how almost all of them said "Heather" in their exit interviews as the main reason for moving on. I don't know how it works in State or Federal government, but she would have been fired years ago in the private sector for the over delegation alone, not to mention being the sole cause for so many highly qualified individuals to move on. Obviously you and Heather are pretty good friends... maybe you should go work for her?

brookly.k.bailey
brookly.k.bailey

@hg51732  In my opinion, reporters should never write about personnel issues. Employers cannot divulge information about an employee's past or current performance. The truth usually lies in the middle. An employee's past performance does not mean they will always be peak performers. Is it possible she has been asked to perform duties that she had not had to in the past?  Is it possible her new boss wanted things done a different way? As a long time state employee/bureaucrat she was she not willing to change?  I would assume a CFO for an elected official, who likely holds a Bachelor's degree, CPA license, and a MBA of Finance, would have the "chops" to testify before committees and have the ability to explain and defend the proper use of state funds to their employer. And just to be clear it could not be Scott Gessler that "FORCED" her to testify. To testify in a legal proceeding you are subpoenaed. More likely she was subpoenaed to testify by the Grand Jury and Ethics Commission. It sounds like Ms. Lizotte has a difficult job, however being a CFO is not a walk in the park.  I'm sure her compensation is significant and high-ranking employees have to do the hard work and answer the hard questions.  It just sounds like Ms. Lizotte is taking the fact she has to do a hard job to do personally and wants to embarrass her employer.  Regardless of where the truth lies I still don't think the reporter wrote a fair story. 

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @muhutdafuga It's like an intelligent libertARYAN/conservative poster.  There must be an intelligent one somewhere, I just haven't seen evidence of one.

With the rise of the baggies, there is more stupidity and corruption among what has degenerated into a yappy little cult.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@DonkeyHotay @rjt1019 Has nothing to do with this article which is all I'm commenting on but you are obviously too stupid to see that... And you obviously don't know the facts and sound like a Jack "Ass" rather than "Donkey"...

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@mmitchell7899 You are a typical reich winger....it doesn't matter what a fellow cultist does, a cultist will lie like you just did to excuse your fellow cultist.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@crystaljespin @rjt1019 I can completely respect your position there given past press on the current Secretary of State but regardless a $2M mistake is hard to stomach as a taxpayer. Let's put this $2M mistake into perspective. This isn't full State or Federal sized budgets we are talking about. The Secretary of State's office budget for fiscal year ending in 2013 was just shy of $20M. Lizotte claims that budgets are revised all the time at the last minute and OK, yes, maybe a few $100K is reasonable. But a $2M boo boo out of $19M! Not to mention the other fiscal obligations she dropped the ball on. Then she jumped ship, left work, and claimed to be traumatized just so she didn't have to fix it?! As a taxpayer who utltimately is paying her salary, that type of mistake is insane... She isn't an elected official and if she's that incompetent of a CFO, someone needed to cut the cord. 

It really does seem like Ms Lizotte is taking advantage of some bad press on Scott Gessler to get herself a nice settlement... Yes politicians can be corrupt and lie but so do everyday people. The politicians just make the news when they do. The ordinary people just get settlements in most cases to shut them up.

As far as you're comment on Mt. States Employment Council, maybe you are right on their competence, I don't have enough experience with that company to comment on their competence. I would guess that as this moves forward the attorney for Ms Lizotte will hire a company to look at the case (just hopefully not at more of our expense). 

Personally speaking but sorry Ms Lizotte, but at least some the public isn't blind enough to give our tax dollars to an extortionist...

 

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@rjt1019 That or it's just another republican abuse of power.


The truth is simple and crisp.  Verbosity is the "tell" of a liar.

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@rjt1019 @DonkeyHotay Yet he is correct about republican corruption.  And yes, I know that "corrupt" and "republikkkan is redundant. 

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 @crystaljespin There is not enough evidence to prove she made a $2 mil mistake. The report said that there wasn't a written explanation for  projected revenues. Can you define what that means and how it impacts the office? What is the severity of this "oversight" or incompetence? Do you know what it means? Can you define this mistake you claim she made? I also don't know what is considered a reasonable last minute budget adjustment, or what is traditionally done at the SOS office, or if this was done in years before. Do you?


I'm not saying that MSEC is incompetent, only that their investigations tend to favor the employer who hired them. As this case moves forward, Ms. Lizotte will have to pay her own attorney and any costs of investigation they choose to make. Only if she wins or the State settles will she recoup any costs.  It will be Gessler and his office of the SOS that will receive a free tax payer funded defense, usually through the office of the Attorney General in personnel cases brought against the State.


Remember, it was Scott Gessler who ran up about $34,000 dollars worth of bills paid by your tax dollars because he didn't want to pay back $1500 for his partisan trip to a Republican convention.  The State hired outside attorneys to defend him that time because the AG's office was too busy with the investigation against him and it was a conflict to defen him, too.


No, there is nothing yet to prove that Ms. Lizotte "really is taking advantage of bad press" against Gessler to get some kind of undeserved settlement. This may come as a surprise to you, but employees are often abused by they're employers, and sometimes employers actually do retaliate against their employees in unlawful ways.


Gessler is about as partisan and corrupt as a Colorado politician can get, and he has bullied many, even legislators. Do you believe he would settle for less than abject submission in his office?


Why do you think the Republican party dug up the old bones of Bob Beaprez to run for governor at the last minute instead of throwing its support to Gessler?


Sorry, but I am a member of the public and I'm not blind enough to give my tax payer dollars to Scott Gessler's defense.




muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@rjt1019 @muhutdafuga @DonkeyHotay If you were getting 10 cents a post for the brain dead cult propaganda you KKKonservatives post, you'd be getting WAY mort than you're worth.


After reading your post, I'm STILL looking for an intelligent conservative.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@crystaljespin @rjt1019 

Again I can appreciate and respect your position on Gessler given past press and your opinion of him but you may be allowing that to cloud the issues in the current articles.


First off to address your comment on the written report. The article claimed that Lizotte didn't provide a written report on why the miscalculation happened. Not that the error wasn't documented. From the article it was not only documented by the Deputy Sec of State but then documented again by a third party accounting firm.


To answer your question on the "projected revenue", this was good reporting and an accurate phrase to use, however that timeline needs to be put into perspective as well. This approximately $2M out of $20M of missing funds was discovered days before Ms Lizotte had to deliver the final budget before the State committee. Not weeks or months. It also took the work of some other non-elected State workers over a weekend and evenings to fix her mistakes over the course of a few days. Why you may ask? Because after Lizotte bailed, THEY were the ones who now needed to pick up the slack for her and deliver the budget report to the State committee. As a testament to those workers, they took pride in their work and weren't going to show up at the most important meeting of the year unprepared.

I apologize for my assumptions on your occupation however you have made some incorrect assumptions of your own. To clarify, my only issue with Heather is the fact she has been a drain on our tax dollars and is now trying to extort us for more. I don't work for the state in any capacity. Simply a concerned tax payer who happens to know what really went down.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@crystaljespin @rjt1019 Um... an independent organization other than MSEC confirmed that the $2M discrepency is pretty self explanitory. Are you saying there are multipule companies in the Denver area bent on Heather's destruction? By chance do you happen to be her attorney? If so you have just as much of my money contributed to the Heather fund, since obvously you're not a tax payer like you claim to be from your post. Lawyer... Um Yep... Fair assumption....

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 @crystaljespin How do you know what really "went down"? Perhaps you can explain. Perhaps you can also define what projected revenue is? Isn't that an estimate of possible "future" revenue? Based on guesstimates on past performance and possible future issues that impact earnings? If that is an estimated guess of future revenue, then why do you use the term "this approximately $2M out of $20M of missing funds". That implies that the money was actually there once, but is now gone. Couldn't estimates of future earnings need to be adjusted and wouldn't that have some support for her? Also, you have not proven that Gessler's bullying and abuse did not impact her health or her ability to perform her job, and that may be why she "bailed". You also haven't proven, and can't prove, that her co-workers who picked up her work weren't participating in abuse themselves. And being "non-elected" means nothing because  there is only one elected official in that office and that is Gessler. All others are either career classified staff, non-classified at will, or Gessler appointees devoted to him.


As for a drain, bullying and retaliation against a target employee usually takes a lot of complicated time and strategy among two or more players to create fraudulent, misrepresentative  documentation to hang a person. That is misuse of official time and State resources, but it happens a lot. I have no personal knowledge of what happened inside those walls. But giving the public attitude  thatGessler displayed, it is hard for me to imagine that the performance of one employee compared to the public embarrassment of Gessler's SOS office over all is really relevant. Gessler doesn't seem to care about ethics any other time. Why now for this?


You don't like this employee, so you think she's a drain on our tax dollars. I think Gessler is the drain and established a badly managed office, and he ruined its reputation himself, leaving an opening for me to doubt the validity of his handling of this particular employee.

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 @crystaljespin We aren't talking about multiple companies "bent" on any individual's destruction. I asked you for an explanation about the use of the term "projected revenues" and how not writing an explanation for a discrepancy impacts the office budget and how that makes a CFO incompetent. Apparently, you don't have an answer. Neither do I, that's why I asked you to explain the magnitude of this oversight that an outside investigator claimed she made.


Bully bosses like Gessler, and others in large organizations, are very adept at taking small details out of reports and situations and blowing them out of proportion or deforming them in order to manufacture an image of a target employee's incompetence. They micromanage and over scrutinize everything the employee does to build a "case" against her. This is called "papering" a personnel file. They will sometimes even lie to fill in any empty gaps.

It is a very common practice with retaliating bosses to deliberately take everything out of context and sensationalizing a  discrepancy, blowing everything out of proportion just to make one person look bad. The press does that, too, haven't you noticed? But you take everything you read and jump to conclusions without all of the facts presented in a logical way. 


Do you have a personal grudge against this employee? No, I am not her attorney. I have worked for attorneys who file claims with the State Personnel Board and the courts against State agencies. I also am an analytical consumer of news reporting and I ask questions. The selection of the words 2 million dollars is deliberately intended to draw attention, but if it doesn't also explain how her actions violate good accounting practices and/or state policy, then it is not good news gathering.


I'm not defending this employee. I'm just pointing out how the information we currently have does not prove her incompetence.


Let's not forget we are talking about Gessler's office, and I don't trust him.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@crystaljespin @rjt1019 

Yes I can define projected revenue because I have to do that each year along with projected expenses. I will try to make this quick and simple. Projected revenue in my case is funds I absolutely know are coming in and projected expenses are funds I absolutely know are going out. It gives me an excellent starting point to project my overall revenue, my margin, cost of operating expenses, and miscellaneous expenses for the upcoming year. This is honestly the easiest part of creating my budget for the following year because its money that I already know about or damn sure should know about. Projected revenue is one of the baselines to help me create an accurate budget. A 10% mistake in projected revenue could result in my overall final budget being off by 20% or more. 

I don't know how the state uses projected revenue in their calculations however that is how I use it every year. I do think it would be safe to assume that if they didn't know about $2M that was definitely coming in, then they would think they needed to make that phantom shortfall. That mostly likely would come from asking the state for more budget $'s than they need for the upcoming year. That would take $2M in overall state budget away from another agency that may need it more. That is why I'm concerned. I can tell you that if the CFO for the company I work for didn't account for $2M in known projected revenue for the year he wouldn't have a job. Not just demoted but canned.


And no I would not like to comment on how I happen to know. Both of the employees in the article described a work atmosphere that cultivated fear of their boss, Ms. Lizotte. That said, I would guess she is capable of retaliation and I would want to ever put anyone in that situation.

And no it has nothing to do with the employee personally. It has to do with competency or lack there of. Being CFO is a pretty demanding job with a lot of responsibility (as any company CFO or government level CFO) but it is also a position that pays VERY well. Easily in the $200K+ range for a $20M budget. Given this is state government let's assume $125K to $150K. Even is she was only making $100K or $115K (very doubtful) that is still a big chunk of tax payer dollars. If you are going to take the position then you have to take responsibility when you make a mistake that could cost the tax payers $2M or more depending on how they use projected revenues in the budget creation process. Yeah and then you would be blogging about how Gessler screwed up the budget when that got reported on. Instead it sounds to me like he cut some dead weight.


Hope this helps! If not I apologize but I got nothing else for you and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@muhutdafuga @rjt1019 @DonkeyHotay Toolbox... some of us have better things to do than sit on the blogs without getting paid. Only for things that are important to us. I certainly don't see your screen name on Reuters, BBC. or any other national news outlet so you must be a low class blog troll. Maybe you only get a penny a post?

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 @crystaljespin If you knew what projected revenues meant, then why did you waste so much of my time? Or did you just look it up? Projected revenues are changed by private businesses all the time, resulting in such consequences as  stock price drops and other things. Sometimes they result in improvements. Any way, they are mercurial. So she allegedly didn't write an explanation about a discrepancy? Is that a requirement, and if so, how serious a violation of policy would her oversight be? If you claim you don't know the State policy or rules, then you can't possibly determine whether she needs to be demoted or fired. All you have is hearsay evidence formed by statements from employees who claim to know something, but you do not have adequate personal knowledge upon which to base an educated opinion. You can form any belief you want, it just won't be based on facts.


I'm not interested in the time spent guessing the amount of her salary. 


Besides, didn't this "discrepancy" occur during the period in time when Gessler was allegedly acting most aggressively toward her, and is it possible that that abuse could contribute to her alleged errors? It would be a common tactic utilized by very skillful bullies, which the Honey Badger clearly is. 


I've read some of your responses to other posters, Maybe you shouldn't be so patronizing and condescending.



muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@rjt1019 @muhutdafuga @DonkeyHotay I can't help but notice you posting your rambling silliness.

Let me help you out, though you don't deserve it:

I'm significantly more intelligent than you are and every time you get cute, you're going to get owned.  Just a word of advice.  Facts are on my side because

FACTS ARE LIBERAL.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@crystaljespin @rjt1019 We aren't talking about a public company here or their size budgets. We are talking about $2M in missed projected revenue, verified by a 3 party firm (apparently they thought the $2M was important enough to note in their report). $2M in missed revenue estimates can have a big overall impact on a budget of $20M but I guess you just don't see it that way. Possibly partisian politics is just all you see. Keep making excuses for this employee but you have not proven anything other than you don't like Scott Gessler personally.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@muhutdafuga @rjt1019 @DonkeyHotay Please... You have already proven that you are nothing but a blog troll and not swayed by any fact, LIBERAL or not.Unfortunately you are nothing but a paid blog troll... Roll on...

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 @crystaljespin If indeed you really have a company or work for a company that you prepare projected revenue reports for,  then you are talking about a private company, unless you run a government agency by yourself. Interesting that you have gone from talking about "missing funds" to missed projected revenue.


I do not know the third party accounting firm hired to review Ms. Lizotte's work or if it has any relation to Gessler and his partisan politics. So I'm looking at that with a jaundiced eye.  We don't have enough info to guess whether they were objective or not. You want to keep repeating $2m, but it is not determined whether any career changing violation or rule oversight occurred.


You haven't proven anything other than you have some personal grudge against Ms. Lizotte and some kind of bragging-rights about inside knowledge you keep alluding to, but don't want to reveal.  Ms. Lizotte may very well be a problem employee. That is still undetermined. In reports in other internet publications, the MSEC investigator has been identified and Ms. Lizotte's attorneys have pointed out that the "investigation" was not conducted in a way intended to document  Gessler's alleged abusive behavior, but instead concentrating only on the targeted employee. This method of obfuscating the details of the abusive actions of the employer would not be unusual for MSEC.


Yes, I am partisan against Gessler, and I make no apologies for that. He has brought shame and scandal to himself and his office since he was elected. Why is it so hard to believe that he and his minions will bully and push out/down a classified employee who points out his problems? Of course he would. You choose to ignore Gessler's overall disappointing, unethical, and recalcitrant behavior during his term, and its impact on his employees. Instead you lay all the blame for this conflict on the shoulders of one employee, simply because you don't like her, while you masquerade as some kind of expert on her performance, even though you don't even work there? Are you paid to stay on these blogs all day and argue with everybody?

muhutdafuga
muhutdafuga topcommenter

@rjt1019 @muhutdafuga @DonkeyHotay 

Hey, remember when you said "Toolbox... some of us have better things to do than sit on the blogs without getting paid."  Need I point out how that alone makes you OWNED?

Come on, can't you do any better than that?  Another right wing nut is always posting about his fantasies and he's smarter than you even though he's just an idiot.

Why don't you try a fact and see if I'm swayed.  OOoooOOOooops, I forgot, conservatives live in a fact free cult universe.

You might get a trusted adult to help with your next attempt.  Right now, in owning you over and over, I'm starting to feel bad for you.  I don't want to be a bully, so get some good material.  PLEASE.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@crystaljespin @rjt1019 You are simply a political party hack, self admittedly. Perhaps you would like to comment on her other mistakes that led to the demotion as mentioned in the article? From the article "The document also mentions several concerns with Lizotte's work performance, including that she inaccurately reported financial data, improperly allocated revenue, allowed an important contract to expire and failed to track grant spending." Sounds like the $2M you keep relentlessly defending was augmented by other gross neglect of job duty. To get paid to sit on a blog you need to be a partisan party hack which is the exact opposite of what defines my ballot. How about yours? Shouldn't you be busy in the Gessler's bushes with a camera so you don't miss him tripping on a crack in the sidewalk? Please... she was dead weight that needed to be at least demoted, if not canned. Have you thought that maybe previous administrations simply passed the buck, because they knew she was a loose cannon and they would only be in the office for a few years? After all it was 2 previous Republican admins and 1 previous Democratic admin? But of course you haven't, you just want a witch hunt to continue that resulted from a false claim (as indicated by the investigation by a third party company). Where do you think the settlement money comes from? That it just materializes in the state's coffers? No it comes from our tax dollars. Lizotte is obviously nothing more than the work place version of an ambulance chaser. You just can't have a discussion with a party hack like you. The facts don't matter only making the other party look bad, regardless of party... In case you were wondering my questions were rhetorical. I really don't expect or want anymore party hack propaganda in my in box... 

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 @crystaljespin  "Lizotte is obviously nothing more than the work place version of an ambulance chaser," says you, and you don't even work in that office, nor have you ever worked for the state. If you are getting information from an employee in the SOS office, does that mean there is a leak there? Are they planting negative information about this woman?


 You call everybody party hacks. So what? 


"Have you thought that maybe previous administrations simply passed the buck, because they knew she was a loose cannon and they would only be in the office for a few years?" says you.


That's ridiculous. Don't you think it is more likely that previous administrations actually thought she was an excellent employee?Only this one doesn't, the most corrupt, the most investigated, the only one she had to face a Grand Jury for before they decided to bully her and start the traditional character assassination.

rjt1019
rjt1019

@crystaljespin @rjt1019 Please... conspiracy theories, little green men, and corruption running rampant in 2 separate investigating companies and the Sec State's Office leading to Ms Lizotte's "unjust" firing?


You have proven yourself a party hack with your posts. It doesn't matter what I call you. If the shoe fits?


Nothing I have mentioned in my posts isn't easily searchable on Google. How about you? Ms Lizotte, her lawyer, or a close personal friend? Do you have something to gain by your posts? I sure don't... other than commenting on this obvious waste of space and her already proven false witch hunt.


Right... It's all Conservative lies isn't that what all of you party hacks say? Please... spare from your propaganda.

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 @crystaljespin I have nothing to gain by posting on this blog. I don't know this person, nor do I work for the SOS.  I do care about the state spending more money to defend bullies who are wasting state time and resources to interfere with the work of an employee so her performance will suffer and then they can make a phony case against her of their own creation so they will have an excuse to fire or demote her. 


If being offended by Gessler's repeated ethical lapses and his arrogant attitude that he is some kind of king makes me a party-hack,  then I wear that title proudly. Much better than being a party hack who defends his unethical behavior and joins a campaign to assassinate a person on the internet to protect him.


You admittedly have no personal knowledge  of this employee's work, you don't work there, you present your hateful claims against her as though you have daily contact with her. You are falsely misrepresenting yourself and your knowledge of the situation by spreading unsubstantiated clams. Your entire case against her is only your opinion, not fact, but you present them as fact though it is clear you are not in any position to know anything. Why have you spent the entire weekend arguing with everybody on two blogs for this story, trying to destroy someone you don't know, and calling everybody names and a party-hack if they disagree with you or if they make salient points that illuminate the apparent fact that you can't possibly know what you claim to know?



rjt1019
rjt1019

We have myself commenting on the facts in the article verified by 2 3rd party companies. You on the other hand comment on conspiracy theories based on a your dislike of a politician. Seriously did you forget your tinfoil hat today?

rjt1019
rjt1019

I speak of facts in the article as verified by 3rd party companies. You speak of conspiracy theories. Maybe The Westword lied in the article and are in on your conspiracy too? Did you forget your tinfoil hat today? Not thinking clearly perhaps?

crystaljespin
crystaljespin

@rjt1019 Excerpts from MSEC's website:


Reliable Results
Count on our expertise for legally sound approaches to evidence gathering, interviewing and credibility assessment. Results are presented in a comprehensive investigation report, your legally defensible basis form nformed decision making.

Post-Investigation Consulting
Your relationship with MSEC continues beyond the investigation process! Knowing the facts, once they are established, is not enough. As always, MSEC attorneys are available to assist with post-investigation analysis and resolution as a function of your membership. This separate analysis considers options in light of applicable law, past practices, and your own organizational culture. We also offer membership services such as policy review and development, and numerous relevant seminars for employees, supervisors, and your management team.

Member Fees
Your membership fee covers the initial assessment of your organization's needs and post-investigation consulting. Investigation services are billed at the Council's hourly rate.


MSEC may call itself a third party investigator but it is not impartial or neutral. It is a non-profit organization created and supported by public and private employers to provide legal advice, development and representation. Employers are dues-paying members. MSEC is very competent at "investigation" of employee complaints in such a way that the analysis of data results in the most favorable way for the purpose of painting the employer in the best light, at the expense of the complaining employee, for the purpose of legal defense.   It does not advocate for employees at all. MSEC provides "expert" testimony for its members in court and before the State legislator for bills that benefit employer's rights over employees and they argue against bills that help employees, unions, consumers, etc. That is hardly an impartial relationship. I don't know who the accounting firm is that reviewed the accounting work, but I'm betting it isn't that impartial, either. If you're basing all your arguments on "facts" from reports created by MSEC, then there's a bridge I can sell you, too. I'd also like to point out that Westword did not publish the entire report, only the fragments they selected for us to read. Even if we read the complete reports, I would still only take MSEC's with a grain of salt.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...