MEMO TO THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION

By Michael Swann

MEMO TO:
June Collison
Dr. Christopher Giza
Peter Lopez
Tim Noonan
Julio Ramirez
Mario Rodriguez
Howard Rose

On Tuesday February 5, 2008 at the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC), working under the state’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), meets in Sacramento at 10 a.m. Included on the agenda under closed session will be a hearing on the “continuation of the evaluation of the executive officer,” according to the DCA website.

That executive officer is Armando Garcia who might be recalled by regular readers as the subject of a two part investigative series run here last September. The story concerned Garcia’s alleged violation of Chapter 18, article 6308 of the Professional Boxing Act of 1996.

Article 6308, entitled “Conflicts of Interest,” states in part, “No member who administers or enforces state boxing laws…may belong to, contract with, or receive any compensation from any person who sanctions, arranges, or promotes boxing matches…” The penalty upon conviction is not more than one year’s imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $20,000 or both.

The series made the case that Garcia violated this federal law by accepting compensation, accommodations, travel and meals for training seminars from sanctioning bodies and state commissions, using as evidence taped interviews, copies of emails, documents, and multiple sources including other executive officers, judges, referees, promoters, sanctioning bodies, commissions and other sources.

click http://www.15rounds.com/Columns/mswann/conflict-090607.php & http://www.15rounds.com/Columns/mswann/conflict-090707.php

or write me at mswann4@aol.com and I will send you a copy.

Despite what appears to be overwhelming evidence, Mr. Garcia survived the expose unscathed, at least by all appearances. He was not imprisoned, fined or removed from his position. I also know from personal experience that some major media outlets expressed interest in pursuing our investigation, but regrettably either had a change of heart or perhaps didn’t have the heart to bring about change.

Recently more sources came forward, former insiders of the Garcia administration, and some current officials. However you want to categorize these people, be it disgruntled current and former employees or courageous whistle blowers, their claims seem well supported based on facts and personal experience. So far they have passed every test that I have put forward as to their veracity.

One such tenacious insider of 14 years provided documentation of letters sent and exchanged with commission members and the personnel office of the DCA, as well as some invaluable eye witness and technical information. An influential boxing insider said that this source, “knows where the bodies are buried.”

THE TRAVEL CONUNDRUM

While on medical leave, my source received a call from Garcia to review his outstanding travel claims, stated to be about $4,000, and Garcia had been denied an advance to travel to San Jose for an event. She had processed his travel claims and requests prior to her illness without incident, handing the documents back to him upon completion. After review, she determined that he did in fact owe money, but a significantly lesser amount. She declined his request to teach another staff member to review and process “uncollected accounts,” as she was on sick leave and felt that he was very unhappy about it.

In a travel advance, the state prefers that you use approved hotel that give a state rate and the state is not charged taxes. For example, the Hilton may be approved at a rate of $100 per night. Yet for some reason when Garcia and company would arrive at different locations where the arrangements had been made in advance secured by the source’s credit card, the group would then drive around looking for a budget hotel such as a Motel 6.

Garcia and a subordinate would then share a room and the subordinate would pay for the room. In addition, the employees would normally pay for all meals, parking, and general expenses.

On a travel claim advance, the employee receives a check from the department prior to the trip, so Garcia would already have received the advance. Included was the following on a Travel Claim Advance “Pre Show.” These examples are for two nights:

Hotel $100 x 2 = $200
Parking $12 x 2 = $24
Per Diem:
Breakfast $6 x 2 =$12
Lunch $10 x 2 = $20
Dinner $18 x 2 = $36
Incidentals $6 x 2 = $12
Total $324

Mileage is 50 cents per mile and can be collected if using your own car to travel to weigh-in, events, and to/from the airport or even if someone drives you to/from the airport.

In the Travel Expense Claim “Post Show,” you are supposed to attach all receipts to your claim so that either you owe the state or they owe additional monies to you.

Hotel $40 x 2 = $80 (The Motel 6)
Parking $0 x 2 = $0 (Free at hotel)
Per Diem:
Breakfast $0 (Ineligible at hotel with Continental Breakfast)
Lunch $10 x 1= $10 (Not eligible on first day due to late departure)
Dinner $18 x 2 =$36
Parking $17 x 1 =$17 (At Event venue)
Incidentals $6 x 2 =$12
Total $155
Under this scenario the state would be owed $169.

But there’s something here that doesn’t ring true. Why would someone who was authorized for upscale accommodations choose to find a cheaper room and sleep with a subordinate rather than have his own private room?

Further, parking, meals, mileage, and incidentals do not require a receipt. If a man was to allow his faithful employees to treat for meals and parking, he could double dip up to $124, plus mileage if so inclined, regardless of the hotel tab.

My informant told Garcia that she disliked the cheaper hotels. She felt unsafe and she told him that they would have to repay the state for the difference of monies received.

I might suggest to the commission that these travel claims be audited, as it strains credibility to believe that anyone would go through these machinations to present an honest claim.

THE WEALTHY FILE CABINET

Checks for fees, taxes ect. came in regularly to the DCA/CSAC. After returning to work from illness my source was faced with a huge backlog. I’m told that while the office had a safe, no one had the combination, or at least wouldn’t admit to it. As a result it became the practice to place the funds in a file cabinet.

At its worst the file cabinet may have accumulated as much as $350,000. After my informant and the DCA cashiering unit came in on a Saturday to do the “backlog” of cashiering, entering approximately $130,000 on the day, Garcia took the credit when all he did was update the form created by the DCA cashiering team.

I only ask: Would you consider sticking that amount of the state’s money in a file cabinet as evidence of running a tight ship?

INSPECTOR 13

Allegations were made by others and confirmed that event inspectors might work as few as one or two bouts then watch the show while still claiming a full night’s pay. Recently, 13 inspectors were scheduled for an event, certainly no fault of their own, but wasteful, at best.

Inspectors are paid for six hours for small shows, eight hours for large shows such as MMA or Kickboxing that usually have more rounds than boxing. They also receive four hours pay when scheduled for a weigh in.

Inspectors are paid from the time that they leave home at $20.00 per hour, except in the case of overtime when time and a half is received. They also 50 cents per mile in travel and $18 for dinner. If they travel 100 miles or more they can claim hotel, breakfast, lunch and dinner as noted above.

TOMORROW:

This week our Saturday column moves to Friday for part two of our story. We’ll address harassment, integrity, and the true story of the Barrera-Juarez I scoring mishap. It’s all food for thought so don’t miss it.