WHATCOM CO TY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE County Courthouse 311 Grand Ave.

Suite #108 Bellingham, WA 98225

Jack Louws
County Executive

July 24,2012

Paul Murphy 1215 E. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 982-2~ REFERENCE: Dear Mr. Murphy, Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2012 outlining a series of concerns related to your employment with the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office. . I directed the handling of your complaint to the County's Human Resources Manager who engaged an outside investigator. I have reviewed the matter and concur with the investigator's conclusions. determined that no further action is warranted. Sincerely, I have COMPLAINT - FINAL DETERMINATION

Enclosure: Investigation Report - July 6, 2012

Office 360 676 6717

Fax 360 676 6775

TOO 360 738 4555

EXHIBIT B

Improper Governmental
Employee Name Department Affected Employee/Person Improper Action(s) Paul Murphy

Action Reporting Form

Department/ Division Date of Occurrence Sheriff's Office

(to be completed by department head or the Human Resources Manager, the Prosecuting Attornev or their designee

Sheriff's Office Involved

Letter rec'd 5/29/2012

Investigation Warranted? (If no, action recommended)

It is not possible to-tell whether a full investigation-is warranted, nature. There is warrant to do a limited amount of investigation investigation is necessary.
I _ .-

as the allegations are rather vague in to determine whether a full

Signature

3 days of employee report, complete top portion and send appropriate

Date

05/31/2012

Within

copy to the County Executive with copy of employee

report

Person Interviewed Paul Murphy,

"Erik Francis, Steve Harris, Bill Elfo,:Dan Gibsonj;Ron

Powers

Details of Investigation See attached report from outside investigator,

Janice 'Corbin

Findings of Investigation --No-complaints of-improper-governmental-actionwithin

time frames-set

by-pplicy.-

Action Recommended No action

Signature

Date

07/06/2012

After investigation Attach additional

is completed,

complete

shaded area and send original to the County Executive for final determination

on actions to be taken.

pages as needed. -Improper Govt Action

1:\FORMS\Complaint

7/12/12

RECEIVED
JUL 6 - 2012
Whatcom County Investigation Paul Murphy Whistleblower Complaint JACK Prepared by Janice Corbin, Sound Employment SolutionCOIdNTY July 6,2012
Introduction

LOUWS EXECUTIVE

On May 28, 2012, Whatcom County Deputy Sheriff Paul Murphy filed a Whistleblower complaint which he forwarded to Whatcom County Executive Jack Louws, Whatcom County Prosecutor Dave McEachran, Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo, and Human Resources Director Karen Goens. In accordance with Whatcom County's resolution 893-14 and County Policies and Procedures on Reporting Improper Governmental -~-~ - - ~---- -- -~ - - -Action and Protecting Employees Against Retaliation, the County's Human Resources Division is responsible for overseeing any Whistleblower complaint filed by a County employee.
-::

Human Resources Director Karen Goens contacted Janice Corbin of Sound Employment Solutions and requested that she investigate Deputy Murphy's May Whistleblower complaint.
Investigative Steps

zs" 85
c.,
I 0"1

~-..>

r-

e::

Ms. Corbin interviewed Deputy Murphy on June 14,2012 at his home with other fami~ members present. At the conclusion of the interview Deputy Murphy was asked if thefe were any witnesses that he felt would have information about his concerns as stated rEi his complaint. In response, Deputy Murphy identified colleagues Deputy Sheriff Erik Francis and Steve Harris, both of whom were interviewed on June 21,2012. Others interviewed during this investigation include: Sheriff Bill Elfo, Whatcom County Assist Chief Deputy Prosecutor/Civil Dan Gibson, and retired FBI Special Agent Ron Powers.
-

Documents reviewed during the investigative process include: the County's Whistleblower policy and reporting procedures; Washington State law; the collective bargaining agreement between Whatcom County Deputies and the County; Deputy Murphy's three (3) page complaint as submitted to Mr. Louws; an investigation initiated by the Sheriffs Office in February of 2012 in which it was alleged that Deputy Murphy had removed and replaced the hard drive from the County owned laptop provided for his professional use, and his subsequent contradictory statements about the matter; Deputy Murphy's disciplinary history; and Washington State guidelines for the statewide Electronic Home Monitoring Program for low level offenders as monitored by the Department of Corrections and Whatcom County District Court.

SES- Whatcom

Cty - Murphy Whistleblower

Complaint 5-28-2012

Pagel of 2

Investigative Findings

It is Deputy Murphy's February 2012 is the previous reporting of effective oversight of

contention that the investigation initiated by the Sheriffs Office in final effort by Sheriff Elfo to terminate him (Murphy) for his misconduct on the behalf of a colleague, and the County's lack of the Electronic Home Monitoring program for low level offenders.

It is not disputed that in 2006 Deputy Murphy did report inappropriate behavior on the behalf of a sergeant, who was then investigated and disciplined for his behavior. It is also not disputed that state's efforts to manage and oversee the Electronic Home Monitoring program for low level offenders has lacked effective oversight. In 2007 Deputy Murphy first learned of the problems with the Electronic Home Monitoring program wnen he-was working as a Patronnvestlgator and accarainglylnformea SheriffElfo, who in turn turned the matter over to the FBI. Although the FBI did not initiate a formal investigation, the problems as highlighted by Deputy Murphy, which he acknowledged in his interview the investigator, were not unique to Whatcom County but rather a statewide concern. The problem(s) with the program continued to go unresolved until Governor Gregoire initiated a task force to investigate the management of the program throughout the state after the murders of four Lakewood police officers in 2009. Deputy Murphy's claim in this instance is not sustained. His May 28th Whistleblower complaint in which he alleges that his recent discipline is retaliation for his bringing forth his concerns in 2007 fails. In order for him to have prevailed in his claim, he would have had to file a Whistleblower complaint in 2007 which he did not do. Further, the time for filing a retaliation claim would have been when he was disciplined in 2008; however he did not do so at that time either. He elected to appeal his discipline utilizing the collective bargaining process at that time.
Conclusion

------

Deputy Murphy's Whistleblower complaint specific to his claim that the Sheriff's Office retaliated against him beginning in 2008 to the present disciplinary action fails. There is no record of his filing a complaint, and by his own admission, he did not file a complaint in 2007.

SES- Whatcom

Cty - Murphy Whistleblower

Complaint

5-28-2012

Page 2 of 2