Rep. Clements Dismissed from Clinton County Auditor’s Office

(H/t a reader — not sure if he wants attribution. I surprised I had not caught wind of this story earlier.)

According to a story in the Kokomo Tribune, Rep. Jacque Clements (R-Frankfort) was dismissed from her part-time job with the Clinton County Auditor’s office by the Clinton County Commissioners for violation of their e-mail policy. The Frankfort Times also, unsurprisingly, has a story.

Rep. Clements was elected as Auditor of Clinton County in 2004. At the time of her dismissal, she was serving as a deputy in the Auditor’s office. She stepped down as elected auditor and took a deputy’s position when she was elected to the House of Representatives. Her election was not without controversy. Then Representative, now Senator, Jim Buck stepped down from his house seat to be appointed to the state senate to replace Sen. Jeff Drozda. The Republicans in Rep. Buck’s district replaced Buck with Heath VanNatter. However, Clements then went on to be the Republican candidate in the general election. (I don’t know if this was in the primary process or not, the Kokomo Tribune story quotes Clinton County GOP chairman Beverley Bush as saying that Clements ended up on the ballot via “backdoor politicking.”) Clements went on to win the general election.

Back to the story at hand. Rep. Clements was dismissed from her deputy auditor’s job by the Clinton County Commissioners for “unauthorized personal use” of the county’s e-mail network. Problems with tax software provided by a company called Nikish apparently play a central role in this matter. It is unclear, however, whether communications from Clements to Nikish are the basis for the dismissal or whether some other communications found during a probe of the Nikish matter form the true basis. According to the Kokomo Tribune article, Clements was a strong advocate for Nikish in landing the contract with Clinton County while Clements was the auditor. Now, the Clinton County Commissioners feel, Nikish did not deliver, and they are trying to get the data and the account transferred back to the prior vendor, Manatron, and Nikish is allegedly not cooperating.

Also, per the Kokomo Tribune:

In addition to getting the Clinton County contract for Nikish, Clements recommended the company for use by other counties at an auditor’s conference.

“Thank you for your endorsement at the Auditor’s Conference,” a company representative said in an e-mail sent to Clements in May 2007.

Between April 3 and April 5, Nikish paid for Clements to stay at a hotel in Commack, N.Y., where the company is headquartered.

A sampling of the e-mails obtained by the Kokomo Tribune through a Freedom of Information request also showed that as early as 2005, Clements maintained a personal, intimate relationship with a Nikish employee.

The Frankfort Times has a follow up article with some response from Clements. From the article, it is hard to parse whether she denies violating the e-mail policy, denies doing anything wrong vis-a-vis Nikish, or is simply denying specific allegations raised with respect to Nikish. The letter cited by the Frankfort Times may be more clear, but it does not appear to be available via the story.

The Kokomo Tribune also has a follow up story discussing Rep. Clements’ response.

I’ll be interested to see how the “improper use of e-mail” theory of dismissal holds up (if it’s challenged in any meaningful sense.) It if it’s just a matter of “honey pick up milk on your way home,” it would be tough to, say, deny unemployment benefits on that basis if other employees routinely use the county system for that type of personal use. On the other hand, the articles hint at e-mails being used to provide Nikish with confidential information from the County. They do not state directly that Clements sent any such e-mails. But, if that were the case, impermissible use of the county’s computer systems would hold up better as a rationale. Indiana is an at-will employment state and so, from that perspective anyway, the rationale isn’t hugely important. Obviously the dismissal can’t be based on some impermissible rationale like race or gender.

Incidentally, if I am reading the stories correctly, Rep. Clements was dismissed on Monday, April 27, 2009. The legislature adjourned on April 29, 2009. I wonder if IC 2-3-3-1 could introduce an unanticipated wrinkle:

Any person being a member of the general assembly of the state of Indiana who, in order to perform the duties as a member of the general assembly of the state of Indiana by attendance at any session of the general assembly, or attendance at any duly called committee meeting, conference, or legislative study committee meeting of which he is a member, has left or leaves a position or employment, other than a temporary position or employment, in the employ of any employer and is still qualified to perform the duties of his employment and makes application for reemployment within ten (10) days after the close of any such session, or meeting, of the general assembly shall be restored by his employer to such position or employment at not less than the same pay or to a similar position or employment and pay unless the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so. When a member of the general assembly is restored to his employment it shall be done without discrimination, nor shall the member be caused to suffer inconvenience or any other adverse action by his employer, as a result of any action taken while serving as a legislator.

Probably not. It’s been more than 10 days since adjournment, so if she hasn’t re-applied under this statute, she’s SOL. And, she didn’t leave her position to perform her duties as a legislator; rather she was told to leave for other reasons. Still, if I were a Clinton County Commissioner, I probably would have waited a couple more days, just to be sure.