RFP Staff
♦ Why haven’t the citizens of Salisbury, NC been informed about what Police Chief Rory Collins called the “Michelle Hardin Case” in an email to Lt. Stallings in December, 2013? The alleged circumstances surrounding the personnel change regarding Hardin’s duties as a finance officer with the City of Salisbury and Rory Collins’ ensuing emails about the “case” raise pressing questions.
A memorandum composed by Collins three weeks after former City finance officer Michelle Hardin’s duties were taken over by current City Finance Manager Wade Furches details criminal charges that Collins states the City of Salisbury may choose to press against Ms. Hardin. “Mutually terminated” former City Manager Doug Paris, Collins, Lt. Stallings, “Human Resource personnel”, and current Finance Manager Wade Furches were privy to conversations regarding the case during December, 2013 and January, 2014.
Why has the City remained silent on its decision, or lack-thereof, to press felony charges described in Collins’ memorandum against a City finance officer in January of 2014? In Collins’ words, “Even though Ms. Hardin did make some statements of admission to our Human Resources personnel, which could potentially be admissible in court setting should the need to do so arise, the case would be better situated for criminal prosecution with a Mirandized statement by law enforcement personnel, which would, without question, be admissible for successful resolution.”
The RFP has obtained the emails by Collins and Paris via public information requests, submitted by our staffers in accordance with NC General Statute §132-1. These emails reveal a possible felony in City Hall which may have taken place over multiple months during 2013.
What could motivate silence on the part of the City of Salisbury over an alleged crime involving City “resources”?
Would such allegations have affected the City’s financial audit for the fiscal year 2013-2014, had they been made public? Were charges made at all? Were payments taken from Ms. Hardin? If so, how many and for how much? Why might a city consider taking payments for “resources” related to an alleged felony charge rather than bring criminal charges against an alleged perpetrator?
On January 9, 2014, Police Chief Rory Collins composed a memorandum describing options for pressing criminal charges against former Salisbury City Finance Department employee Michelle Hardin, stating, “If the decision to pursue charges against Ms. Hardin were made, the charge would, in fact, be ‘Embezzlement’.” In his memorandum, Collins continues, “It was revealed during discussions with Mr. Furches, that some type of possible re-payment arrangements were made with Ms. Hardin. There is certainly nothing wrong with doing this and, in many cases, this procedure is a better solution to bringing a matter, like this one, to a faster and quieter resolution” (emphasis ours). The entire memorandum appears at the bottom of this article. You can also access it by going to this URL: https://app.box.com/s/3oh01pmiyejqgwkpa7ep
Why would Collins concern himself with a “quieter” resolution of a crime by a City employee concerning City “resources” that may result in felony charges? Wouldn’t a felony charge such as the one described be of great concern to the citizens of Salisbury, NC? Collins does not cite if the felony charge could be Class C (for a value of $100,000 or more) or Class H (for a value of $100,000 or less), although he notes in his memorandum that in Hardin’s case, “the subsequent sentencing level utilized in the prosecution of her case would be higher than a standard Embezzlement charge.”
The NC statutes on embezzlement can be viewed here: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_18.pdf
In North Carolina, a person convicted of a Class C felony may serve between 44 and 182 months. A person convicted of a Class H felony may serve between 4 and 25 months. Neither of these penalties include mitigating or aggravating circumstances that could decrease or increase a sentence. What are the implications of Collins’ statement that Hardin’s charge “would be higher than a standard Embezzlement charge”?
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL.org) summarizes felonies such as the one Collins describes and the ensuing penalties after conviction in North Carolina as follows: (See more at http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-chart-criminal-penalties-for-public-corr.aspx#NC)
Collins’ memorandum was first discussed a week after Brent Roberts of NCID emailed the “mutually-terminated”, former Salisbury City Manager Doug Paris. In his email, Roberts informed Paris that he received a request for access to the sensitive documents portal at the North Carolina Management (or NCID) by Wade Furches (who is now Finance Manager for the City of Salisbury). Roberts stated and that he understood Michelle Hardin was no longer employed by the City. He explained that NCID is a “centralized identity management and authentication service provided by the state. It is used to ‘protect’ state applications and allows access of state and local government employees to state applications. The service currently provides identity authentication for about 200 state applications. These applications are in DHHS, DOT, DOR, OSC, and other agencies. The applications allow access to tax, criminal, health and other sensitive data.” Roberts’ email revealed that Michelle Hardin’s administrative access still existed on December 10th, 2013, and that Paris would need to provide a written approval in order for NCID to give administrative access to Furches. To view this email and Paris’ reply that Wade Furches would be the new City contact, go to this URL: https://app.box.com/s/2lmxqflldmm8v7rjbv9k
Michelle Hardin is still listed as an administrator for the City of Salisbury on the NCID info page at https://www.ncid.its.state.nc.us/AdminDetails.asp?co=Rowan .
A week after the personnel change in the Finance Department of the City of Salisbury, Collins wrote Lt. Brian Stallings that he had “received an inquiry from C.M.” ( the City Manager) “about [the Michelle Hardin Case]” and “Just a reminder about the memo I need in this when you can.” To view that email, go to this URL: https://app.box.com/s/lac9whbimcwu8vos8c9j
The emailed memorandum regarding the “Michelle Hardin Case” appears below. You can also access it by going to this URL: https://app.box.com/s/3oh01pmiyejqgwkpa7ep
From: Rory Collins <Rcoll@salisburync.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:40 PM
To: Rory Collins
Subject: MICHELLE HARDIN CASE
MICHELLE HARDIN CASE
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the results of the Police Department’s review of the matter involving former Finance Department staff member, Michelle Hardin.
At the onset of this review, which was being conducted pursuant to request by the City Manager, I met with my Criminal Investigations Commander, Lt. Brian Stallings. Our meeting allowed me to share with the Lieutenant the nature of this situation, the circumstances known, the significance of maintaining confidentiality in this matter, and to request that he study the case in order that he may render a professional opinion with respect to whether Ms. Hardin’s actions met the criminal elements necessary for a violation of N.C. General Statutes and, if so, the strength of the case in the event that the decision was made to pursue criminal charges against her. My instructions to Lt. Stallings were to study the case, make a determination, and then provide me with a memorandum which summarizing his findings.
Upon assignment of this case, and after receiving a copy of the supporting documentation, Lt. Stallings met with Mr. Wade Furches, the designated supervisory contact for the Finance Department. This was done in order to aide him in gaining a firm understanding of Ms. Hardin’s actions.
With a complete understanding of Ms. Hardin’s actions, which occurred on numerous occasions throughout 2013, and upon studying the General Statutes, the determination of whether a crime had taken place was quite obvious. In fact, during his study of the necessary elements to meet the charge of “Embezzlement”, which is a standard Class ____ Felony, Lt. Stallings revealed some information that would be applicable to this situation, but which is very rarely used by our agency in embezzlement-related investigations. This statutory discovery involves cases in which an employee, who works for a branch of government, regardless of the level, and who was entrusted to work with resources possessed/owned by that branch of government, but who instead fraudulently misused (for personal gain) any of those resources, is guilty of a Class _____ Felony. Therefore, if the decision to pursue charges against Ms. Hardin were made, the charge would, in fact, be “Embezzlement”. However, the subsequent sentencing level utilized in the prosecution of her case would be higher than a standard Embezzlement charge.
At the conclusion of this decision-making process, if the determination is made that the City of Salisbury elects to have Ms. Hardin charged for her actions, it would be necessary for my department to activate a formal case report on this matter and that the detective/investigator assigned have the opportunity to execute a complete investigation from a law enforcement standpoint. In addition to the completion of reporting requirements, this would also include the collection of all original paperwork and other documentation used and/or submitted by Ms. Hardin as part of her criminal actions. These documents would then be submitted into our departmental evidence holding and tracking system for future court purposes. Also necessary to the successful “criminal” handling of this matter would be the need for formal interviews and the taking of written statements by city Finance personnel who have been involved in the internal handling of this matter. Finally, we would then pursue conducting a formal Mirandized interview with Ms. Hardin about her actions. Even though Ms. Hardin did make some statements of admission to our Human Resources personnel, which could potentially be admissible in court setting should the need to do so arise, the case would be better situated for criminal prosecution with a Mirandized statement by law enforcement personnel, which would, without question, be admissible for successful resolution.
While the Statute of Limitations for Misdemeanor crimes is two (2) years from the date of incident, there is no Statute of Limitations for Felony crimes. Therefore, there is no rush to making a decision in this matter if additional time is needed.
One important note to consider in this matter involves the turning of a clear criminal act, which can be prosecuted, into a non-prosecutable “civil” matter. As you will see in Lt. Stallings’ summary, which is attached with my memorandum, it was revealed during discussions with Mr. Furches, that some type of possible re-payment arrangements were made with Ms. Hardin. There is certainly nothing wrong with doing this and, in many cases, this procedure is a better solution to bringing a matter, like this one, to a faster and quieter resolution. However, the necessary thing to note here is that, the minute a payment, or some type of acceptable reimbursement, is received by the city in this matter, we would no Onager be capable of prosecuting Ms. Hardin in a criminal court. The only remaining remedy in such a case would be via the civil courts.
Please, feel free to contact me for further information or with any questions regarding this matter.
