Gifts to County Worker Questioned

The owner of a computer company gave a friend in Los Angeles County’s child welfare agency a $25,000 check to buy a new Mercedes four months after winning a $4-million contract from the department, according to a confidential audit obtained by The Times.

In addition, auditors found, Tedjitou Dessalegn received $5,000 from the computer company and was assisted in obtaining a car loan.

County auditors concluded that awarding the contract to Transnational Computer Technology was questionable and that the actions of Dessalegn--who told auditors she knew the company’s owner was “using” her to secure the contract--”present an appearance of impropriety.”

But the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office has declined to prosecute because Dessalegn--who remains in her county job--and others in the Department of Children and Family Services maintain that she had no role in awarding the contract.

“She didn’t have any influence or any authority in regards to the awarding of the contractor,” district attorney’s spokeswoman Victoria Pipkin said.

Dessalegn did not return calls for comment, but a Department of Children and Family Services spokesman said the agency is reviewing the report and stressed that personnel issues are confidential.

“It would be very unfair and misleading to jump to conclusions before that process is completed,” Neil Rincover said. “On a personal note, the person you’re speaking of is one of the most highly respected administrators in this department and that makes it all the more unfair for people to make a snap judgment.”

Wond Wossen Messfin, the computer company owner who gave Dessalegn the gifts, stressed that they were personal presents and not hidden or intended to sway the agency.

“It’s not what it’s made out to be,” Messfin said Tuesday night. “I gave her a gift because she had a totaled car. Maybe I did it at the wrong time.”

The case has flabbergasted county officials. Auditors are urging a sweeping new policy requiring all staffers involved in the contracting process to report gifts from contractors of more than $50 and expanding existing limits on gifts.

“Allowing county employees and managers to accept gifts of the nature discussed in this report could lead to claims of favoritism, and undermine the public’s confidence in the county’s contracting and purchasing process,” they wrote.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, calling the auditor’s report a whitewash, wants the case discussed in closed session at next week’s board meeting. “It is irrational,” he said of the situation.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said he could not believe the gifts were legal. “The whole thing is preposterous,” he said. “I can’t believe there is a loophole that big in state or county law that allows anyone to accept that gift, but if there is it has to be plugged with epoxy.”

That loophole exists, according to the audit. Each county department designates a group of officials who cannot receive gifts of more than $300, but Dessalegn was not in that category. Additionally, since the car was bought after the contract was awarded it apparently does not violate state conflict-of-interest laws, the audit concludes.

At the time of the gifts Dessalegn was executive assistant to former Department of Children and Family Services Director Peter Digre, who left the county job in June. Her responsibilities included coordinating assignments among department staff and acting as a department liaison with supervisors.

Messfin and Dessalegn have been friends for 20 years, according to the audit. The report states that Dessalegn told auditors that “Mr. Messfin is a generous person who likes to help his friends.”

Before the company was awarded its contract, Dessalegn discussed business opportunities with Messfin, saying that she was aware he was “using her position to try to obtain a . . . contract,” according to the audit.

The head of the agency’s contracting division, Al Lecesne, told auditors he was introduced to Messfin in Digre’s office while in Dessalegn’s presence and was asked by the then-director to brief Messfin on the county contracting process.

According to the auditors’ report, Dessalegn does not recall being in the office during the meeting and denied arranging it, although she recalled seeing Messfin and Digre together.

Auditors cited instances in which Dessalegn apparently spoke to three staffers in the Department of Children and Family Services unit that ultimately was responsible for awarding the contract. One of the two staffers who made the final decision told auditors she was aware Dessalegn and Messfin were friends but denied that it influenced the contract. Dessalegn also strongly denied to auditors she had any influence on the decision.

Auditors cited several irregularities in the contract award, including the fact that the bids were not sealed and that the only written comments supporting the award were statements such as “looks good.”

In March 1998, Messfin’s company was awarded a $1.2-million contract to help run the agency’s computer system. The cost of the contract was subsequently raised to $4.4 million through 25 amendments. Auditors recommend that the contract be re-bid or canceled.

In July 1998, Dessalegn and Messfin went to a Mercedes dealership and selected a new Mercedes-Benz E320 for $50,000 to replace Dessalegn’s Toyota Camry, which had been damaged in an accident, the report states.

Messfin gave Dessalegn a $25,000 cashier’s check and helped secure her bank loan. He also may have helped Dessalegn make her $510 monthly payments on the car, auditors found, although Dessalegn told them she makes the payments using her county salary, savings bonds and $500 in monthly child support payments.

Auditors also were unable to determine how an extra $20,000 appeared in Dessalegn’s bank account over the last two years. She identified $4,000 as a gift, but would not identify the source. She said it was not Messfin.

Messfin also gave Dessalegn $5,000 in 1998, when Dessalegn spoke of a desire to visit her native Ethiopia.

The report suggests that the agency consider disciplinary action against Dessalegn. “Ms. Dessalegn’s actions present an appearance of impropriety,” auditors wrote, “which is harmful to the public service.”