Infractions Cited at Caltrans Office : Agency Admits S.D. Workers Cashed Checks With Cashier

Nearly six months after officials of the San Diego office of the state Department of Transportation were “shocked and embarrassed” by reports that money was missing, Caltrans spokesmen are acknowledging for the first time that it was not an uncommon practice for employees to cash checks at the agency’s cashier’s cage.

But those spokesmen say the cashing of personal and travel expense checks had little or nothing to do with the money so far discovered missing from the San Diego office, which handles $250,000 per month in transactions for rents, fees, road plans, books and pamphlets.

Still, the cashing of personal checks--a practice of supervisors and managers as well as rank-and-file employees--was cited as a key reason for firing two cashiers and demoting a regional department executive last May.

Department officials say they can document that $20,000 disappeared from the district’s cashier’s office during 1985, and they say a spot check has also shown there were losses during 1984.

So far, no one has been charged with taking any money. The San Diego County district attorney’s office said its criminal investigation “is still open.”

But a series of state Personnel Board hearings for the two fired cashiers and the demoted executive have begun, or are getting under way, before an administrative law judge in San Diego.

Caltrans spokesman Dan Parker said that, no matter how common the practice may have been among the 550 San Diego district employees of the giant road-building agency, cashing personal checks was “against the rules.”

“The reason the cashiers are on the hook is they are the ones who know it is against the rules,” said Parker, who added that department officials have not decided whether other employees may eventually face disciplinary actions for cashing checks.

From the outset, Caltrans officials have said they can sustain the personnel actions against the fired cashiers for sloppy bookkeeping, rules violations and other derelictions of duty, even if they are never able to implicate the two women in theft.

That attitude has been criticized by Assemblywoman Lucy Killea (D-San Diego), Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda) and others, who said that some high-level department executives who pilfered money through highly questionable expense claims have been simply allowed to pay it back. It represents a “very serious double standard,” Killea and Katz said at a special hearing earlier this year.

The disclosures of missing funds followed a series of embarrassing revelations of widespread Caltrans payroll padding and expense abuses throughout the state. Some Caltrans employees charged privately that top officials were making an example of the San Diego employees to improve their tarnished image.

The department’s fairness in handling the personnel actions is certain to be a point of contention later this week, when the Personnel Board hearing is scheduled to begin for Linda Silverthorn, one of the fired cashiers.

Silverthorn, who has hired an attorney, declined comment on her case last week. But in earlier interviews, Silverthorn has contended that she was the one who prompted the detailed investigation by calling attention to sloppy accounting practices and the cashing of personal checks.

Department documents submitted for the administrative hearings now confirm her claim that supervisors and managers were among those who cashed checks at the cashier’s office.

Silverthorn charged that her firing was department officials’ final retaliation against her for “blowing the whistle” on a department manager for discrimination in making a job promotion in 1983, and for maintaining a close personal relationship with Michael Northeimer, the deputy district director who was demoted.

Department officials did not cite Silverthorn and Northeimer’s friendship in their case against her, but they noted in Northeimer’s demotion papers that he had “compromised” supervision in the accounting office by maintaining “an open personal relationship.”

“Nobody is claiming that my client walked out of Caltrans with cash in her pocket,” said Silverthorn’s lawyer, Leroy Davies of San Diego. “My client never walked out of Caltrans with a penny that didn’t belong to her.”

“Caltrans is retaliating against a person who speaks up against perceived wrongs,” added Davies.

Silverthorn’s hearing is the last to get under way. Personnel Board records show that Karen Knight, the other cashier, agreed to settle her appeal just before her hearing was to begin last month. The settlement agreement is not yet available in official state records, but Parker said the department essentially agreed to list the reason for Knight’s dismissal as “inefficiency.” Parker said that the charge of dishonesty was dropped, although state audits show she was “responsible for” $16,400 of the missing state funds. Efforts to reach Knight’s attorney were unsuccessful.

The hearing for Northeimer began Oct. 23 but was recessed after Northeimer’s lawyer, Tom Adler of El Cajon, won the right to call state Caltrans Director Leo J. Trombatore as a witness. Adler said he hopes to resume the appeal in December, with the state transportation chief as a star--albeit hostile--witness.

Meanwhile, the months-long criminal investigation to determine culpability for the missing funds is still ongoing, said Deputy Dist. Atty. Don Canning, who declined to elaborate on the case.

Canning said it will be at least three or four weeks before it is known whether any criminal charges for the theft of the state funds will be brought.

Canning said only that there were “less than five” targets of the criminal investigation. He declined to say whether others besides the employees named in the personnel actions might be involved, or whether any of them had been cleared.

Both Silverthorn and Northeimer have initiated preliminary civil defamation actions against the state, claiming their reputations have been damaged to the tune of $33 million. The state Board of Control, which routinely rejects claims against the state, has turned down both their claims. The rejections clear the way for lawsuits against Caltrans, which both attorneys say are likely.