<p>STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF ROWAN 11 DOJ 2019</p><p>Richard Alan Hadley, ) Petitioner ) vs. ) DECISION NC Sheriffs’ Educaiton and Training Standards ) Commission, ) Respondent )</p><p>On June 28, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Selina M. Brooks, heard this case in High Point, North Carolina. This case was heard after Respondent requested, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 150B-40(e), the designation of an administrative law judge to preside at the hearing of a contested case under Article 3A, Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes. </p><p>APPEARANCES</p><p>Petitioner: David B. Freedman, Attorney-at-Law Respondent: John J. Aldridge, III, Special Deputy Attorney General</p><p>ISSUE</p><p>Did Petitioner knowingly make a material misrepresentation of any information required for certification as a justice officer to the North Carolina Sheriffs' Education and Training Standards Commission?</p><p>FINDINGS OF FACT</p><p>1. Both parties are properly before this Administrative Law Judge, in that jurisdiction and venue are proper, both parties received notice of this hearing, and the Petitioner received by certified mail, the proposed revocation of justice officer certification letter, mailed by Respondent Sheriffs' Commission on January 4, 2011. </p><p>2. The North Carolina Sheriffs' Education and Training Standards Commission (hereinafter Sheriffs' Commission) has the authority granted under Chapter 17E of the North Carolina General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 10B, to certify justice officers and to deny, revoke, or suspend such certification. </p><p>3. 12 NCAC 10B .0204(c)(1) and (2) states that the Sheriffs' Commission may deny or revoke the certification of a justice officer when the Commission finds that the applicant has: -2-</p><p>(1) knowingly made a material misrepresentation of any information required for certification or accreditation from the Commission or the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission; or,</p><p>(2) knowingly and designedly by any means of false pretense, deception, defraud, misrepresentation, or cheating whatsoever, obtained or attempted to obtain credit, training or certification from the Commission or the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission.</p><p>4. The Petitioner was appointed as a detention officer and as a deputy sheriff through the Rowan County Sheriff's Office on July 9, 2009. The Petitioner signed a Report of Appointment Form for this appointment on this date below an attestation which reads, in pertinent part, “... that the information provided above and all other information submitted by me, both oral and written throughout the employment and certification process is thorough, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further understand and agree that any omission, falsification, or misrepresentation of any fact or portion of such information can be the sole basis for termination of my employment and/or denial or revocation of my certification at any time; now or later.” The Petitioner completed a Personal History Statement (Form F-3), on or about July 9, 2009, as part of his original employment application with the Rowan County Sheriff's Office and in order to obtain certification as a justice officer from the Sheriffs' Commission. </p><p>5. Question No. 21 of the Sheriffs' Commission Form F-3 (revised 6/2009) asked the applicant: “have you ever been sued with a civil judgment being rendered against you? Please note this includes repossessions, evictions, executions, etc. If Yes, give details:.” The Petitioner responded to Question No. 21 by marking the block “No.” The Petitioner signed this Personal History Statement on July 9, 2009 and swore to the accuracy of its contents before a notary public. The attestation directly above the Petitioner's signature on this form reads: “I hereby certify that each and every statement made on this form is true and complete and understand that any misstatements or omission of information may subject me to disqualification or dismissal. I also acknowledge that I have a continuing duty to update all information contained in this document. I will report to the employing agency and forward to the Sheriffs' Education and Training Standards Commission any additional information which occurs after the signing of this document.” </p><p>6. The Petitioner's Report of Appointment and Personal History Statement forms were submitted to the Respondent on July 23, 2009 by representatives from the Rowan County Sheriff's Office. As of that date of submission, neither the Rowan County Sheriff's Office personnel nor staff for the Respondent had any knowledge of any judgments being rendered against the Petitioner. </p><p>7. In the Fall of 2010, Diane Konopka, Deputy Director for the Respondent, was notified by Lieutenant Barry Rodgers of the Rowan County Sheriff's Office that a civil complaint -3-</p><p> had been filed against the Petitioner concerning non-payment of child support. Upon receipt of this notification, and in an effort to ensure that such civil process would not impact on the Petitioner's certification, Ms. Konopka contacted the Rowan County Clerk of Court's Office to gather information concerning the non-support issue. Ms. Konopka requested all civil process that had been served on the Petitioner be forwarded to the Respondent. Upon receipt of this documentation, Ms. Konopka noticed that the Petitioner had previously been sued with judgments being rendered against him on two occasions in 2001. </p><p>8. This documentation (Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4) reflect that a complaint in summary ejectment (01 CVM 688) was filed against Petitioner on March 26, 2001 alleging the Petitioner was delinquent in his rent payments in the amount of $742.70. A magistrate's summons was issued on this complaint on March 27, 2001 and indicated a trial date of July 20, 2001. This summons and complaint was served on March 29, 2001 on Heather Hadley, Petitioner's ex-wife. A judgment was entered against the Petitioner on April 10, 2001 in a total amount of $841.55. The judgment reflects that the Petitioner was not present at trial. </p><p>9. Records supplied by the Clerk of Court also reflect that a complaint for money owed was filed against the Petitioner on August 2, 2001 in Rowan County. (01 CVM 1787) This complaint reflected that the Petitioner was in breach of a promissory note in the amount of $3,588.81. A magistrate's summons was issued on this complaint on August 6, 2001. A trial date of August 20, 2001 was set. This summons and complaint was served on Cynthia Gullige on August 7, 2001. Documentation supplied by the Clerk of Court's Office also contained a handwritten statement (filed with the Clerk of Superior Court on August 17, 2001) signed by both the Petitioner and Heather Hadley. This handwritten statement states:</p><p>To Whom It May Concern:</p><p>This is a written answer for the case F & M Bank v. Richard and Heather Hadley. </p><p>I admit that the loan has not been pd on in several months. Heather and I split up and neither could afford to pay at that time. We are willing to work out a payment plan to pay off the debt. If a judgment must be put in place until debt is paid off that is fine with both of us. </p><p>10. The civil suit contained at 01 CVM 1787 reflects that on August 20, 2001 judgment was entered in open court against the Petitioner in a total amount of $3,588.81. </p><p>11. Subsequent to receiving the documentation concerning the two civil suits and judgments rendered against the Petitioner from 2001, staff for the Respondent requested a statement from the Petitioner explaining why he did not list these two judgments on his Personal History Statement. In a notarized statement dated November 16, 2010, Petitioner stated that he had misunderstood Question No. 21 concerning having a judgment rendered against him and went on to elaborate that he thought the question only applied to being sued by “another individual in civil court.” He stated that he did not realize that if a company puts a judgment on -4-</p><p> your credit for non-payment it is considered being sued also. </p><p>12. All of the assembled information was presented to the Probable Cause Committee of the Respondent who subsequently found probable cause to believe that the Petitioner made a knowing material misrepresentation of information by failing to disclose his two 2001 judgments when he completed his July 9, 2009 Personal History Statement.</p><p>13. The Petitioner testified on his own behalf at this administrative hearing. The Petitioner testified that he completed a previous Personal History Statement in 2008 to be sponsored by the Rowan County Sheriff's Office in order to attend basic law enforcement training. This document, found at Petitioner's Exhibit 1, represents a January 2006 version of the Respondent's Personal History Statement. When the Petitioner completed the July 9, 2009 Personal History Statement in question, this version represents a more recent version of the Personal History Statement. Petitioner stated that when he completed the 2009 statement, he compared and copied his answers from his previous 2008 Personal History Statement and may not have read all of the questions on the new form as carefully. It is noted, however, that on the 2009 form, Petitioner did, under the financial section of the Personal History Statement, change a number of his answers with updated debt amounts. </p><p>14. The 2008 version of the Personal History Statement asks, “Have you ever been sued with a civil judgment being rendered against you?” The Petitioner answered “no” on this 2008 version of the Personal History Statement. The most recent 2009 version of the Personal History Statement, in Question No. 21, asked the same question, with a further qualification as follows: “Please note this includes repossessions, evictions, executions, etc.” In response to this more refined and specific question, Petitioner still answered, “No.”</p><p>15. In his testimony, Petitioner stated that at some point he did review a copy of a credit report on himself. Petitioner reviewed the credit report prior to completing the 2009 Personal History Statement. Petitioner testified that the two judgments in question were not listed on the report. Petitioner did, however, list on the 2009 Personal History Statement, under the criminal record section, a charge from 2001 in Rowan County for a worthless check. Petitioner stated that he had not forgotten about the incidents that gave rise to the two lawsuits and judgments in question, but rather alleged that he did not know of the judgments as they had not been personally served on him. </p><p>16. As to the complaint and judgment found in 01 CVM 688, Petitioner testified that during this time frame, he and his ex-wife resided in a home they rented from Wood Realty. Petitioner acknowledged that he was behind in the rent. During this time frame, Petitioner described a scenario whereby he and his wife were living above their means which put them delinquent in a number of their financial obligations and contributed to the dissolution of his marriage. Petitioner testified that around the time of the filing of this complaint, he had moved away from the residence back to his parents' home. Petitioner stated that the summons and complaint were served on his ex-wife but that he had not received a copy of it. Petitioner acknowledged that he knew he was delinquent on his rent obligations. After being approached by Lieutenant Rogers in the Fall of 2010 about this judgment, Petitioner stated that he has not attempted to contact Wood Realty or in any way attempted to make arrangements to satisfy the -5-</p><p> debt. </p><p>17. As to the complaint in 01 CVM 1787, Petitioner stated that he and his ex-wife had taken out a personal loan and that he fell delinquent on this loan in 2001. Petitioner stated that he did not recall the specifics but knew that he had been contacted by someone from the F & M Bank who notified him about the pending lawsuit. Petitioner testified that he recalled meeting with officials from F & M Bank who informed him about the court proceeding and that there was a possibility a judgment could be rendered against him. It was subsequent to this meeting, that the Petitioner wrote the statement filed with the Rowan County Clerk of Court on August 17, 2001, admitting that the loan had not been paid and acquiescing to a judgment being placed against him. Petitioner testified that he never bothered to follow up with F & M Bank to ascertain the status of that suit and Petitioner denied being served with a copy of the judgment. Petitioner again acknowledged that after this matter was brought to his attention in the Fall of 2010 by Lieutenant Rogers, that he did not follow up with F & M Bank to inquire about the status of the debt or attempt to make any arrangements to satisfy the debt.</p><p>18. Petitioner also testified that during the time frames in question when the lawsuits and judgments were filed and rendered, that he did not have regular contact with his ex-wife. He did admit however to speaking with her on important matters. Petitioner stated that he would talk with his ex-wife concerning their children and that he was aware of his wife having an issue with a Ford automobile being repossessed in and around the 2003 timeframe. </p><p>19. Sheriff Kevin Auten of Rowan County testified that he has been with the Rowan County Sheriff's Office for twenty-three years and has been the Sheriff for one-and-a-half years. He knows the Petitioner and considers him a good employee in the jail. The sheriff is not aware of any issues of truthfulness with Petitioner. Petitioner was hired before Sheriff Auten took office and he has decided to keep him on staff. Sheriff Auten testified that had he known of the two 2001 judgments against the Petitioner, that it would have raised a “red flag” and prompted his office to further investigate. They did not have an opportunity to do so in this case as they were unaware of these judgments. Sheriff Auten believes that it is important for an agency and the Commission to know of a person's prior financial history so that his susceptibility to bribes and other such actions could be evaluated. </p><p>20. David Hess testified on behalf of Petitioner and stated that he has known the Petitioner since high school in 1995. Mr. Hess was out of touch with the Petitioner for four years while he served in the United States Marine Corps. Since returning to Rowan County, he has again befriended the Petitioner and considers him to have a good reputation for honesty. </p><p>21. Captain Jerry Davis is the jail administrator for Rowan County. He testified that he has not had any issues with untruthfulness on behalf of the Petitioner. Captain Davis testified that it is critical for all detention officers to fully and truthfully answer all background questions asked of them. </p><p>22. The Petitioner has served for two years in the Rowan County Jail as a detention officer. Prior to this employment, he was employed with Dow Chemical. Petitioner testified that he did not think of the back payment of rent issue or the breach of the promissory note issue as -6-</p><p> being a judgment. </p><p>23. The omission of the two 2001 lawsuits and subsequent judgments were omissions of material information required for certification. The Respondent has found that honesty and integrity are essential attributes of being a justice officer. Justice officers are expected to respond to all background questions fully and truthfully so that their employer and the Commission can make an informed decision on their eligibility for both employment and certification. Moreover, the omission was material in that the omission of these judgments deprived the Rowan County Sheriff's Office of the ability to conduct a timely inquiry into the nature of the judgments to better assess the Petitioner's eligibility for employment and subsequent certification.</p><p>24. The Undersigned further finds that the Petitioner's omission of the two 2001 judgments was knowingly made. The question on the Respondent's Personal History Statement asking if the applicant had ever been sued with a judgment being rendered against him is clear. While Petitioner contends he was unaware that the judgments had been rendered against him, the 2009 Personal History Statement he completed had a more refined question which gave examples, such as repossessions and evictions. This 2009 version of the Personal History Statement should be sufficient to prompt the Petitioner to respond with information concerning the two prior debts. Moreover, the Petitioner, in his statement to F & M Bank in 2001, specifically referenced his understanding that a judgment could and may be entered against him and further stating that he was not going to contest the action. The Petitioner testified that he had not forgotten about the non-payment of rent or the delinquency of the promissory note. Rather, because of his personal situation, the Petitioner walked away from these obligations. A reasonable person in the Petitioner's situation would know of the debts and (especially in the situation of the delinquent promissory note owed to F & M Bank) specifically that there was a lawsuit against him for the delinquent money owed. In the Petitioner's words, he wanted to put that part of his life behind him. Petitioner was alert to these civil outstanding financial issues and chose not to divulge any information about these scenarios to either the Rowan County Sheriff's Office or the Respondent. All of these factors lead to the conclusion that the Petitioner knowingly omitted these lawsuits and judgments from his 2009 Personal History Statement he completed for his employment with the Rowan County Sheriff's Office.</p><p>25. Pursuant to 12 NCAC 10B .0205(2), the period of sanction for a finding that an individual made a knowing material misrepresentation of information required for certification is five years. The Commission however may either reduce or suspend the period of sanction following an administrative hearing when extenuating circumstances brought out at the administrative hearing warrant such a reduction or suspension. In deciding to make a recommendation in this regard, the undersigned administrative law judge takes note that the Petitioner has made no attempts to make any contact with the creditors in an effort to either establish the status of the debt or make reparations for the debt. Simply put, the Petitioner has chosen to ignore the debts. It is for these reasons and the other Findings of Fact herein, the Undersigned does not recommend a suspension or reduction in the period of sanction.</p><p>CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -7-</p><p>1. The parties properly are before the undersigned administrative law judge and jurisdiction and venue are proper.</p><p>2. The Petitioner knowingly made a material misrepresentation of information required for certification by failing to disclose his two 2001 lawsuits and subsequent judgments from his 2009 Personal History Statement completed for his employment through the Rowan County Sheriff's Office. </p><p>3. The Petitioner's knowing material misrepresentation of information constitutes a violation of 12 NCAC 10B .0204(c)(1) and (2). The Respondent's proposed revocation of the Petitioner's Application for Certification is supported by substantial evidence. </p><p>DECISION</p><p>Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends the Respondent deny the Petitioner's justice officer certification for a period of five years.</p><p>NOTICE</p><p>The Agency making the Final Decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file Exceptions to this Decision, to submit Proposed Findings of Fact and to present oral and written arguments to the Agency. N.C.G.S. § 150B-40(e).</p><p>The Agency that will make the Final Decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Sheriffs' Education and Training Standards Commission.</p><p>This the 28th day of July, 2011.</p><p>______Selina M. Brooks Administrative Law Judge</p>