Shelby County Sheriff’s Office – ISP Investigation Failures Exposed – Part I – Rob McCall Interview

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

Rick Cenar, Deputy Chief, Criminal Enforcement Division, Chief Public Integrity Bureau was the person in charge that concluded after their review of the ISP investigation there was no criminal offense against the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office.

I contacted Mr. Cenar yesterday and asked two basic questions:

• Do you have an interest in knowing key details that were clearly missed by the ISP investigation?
• Is there a reason the County Treasurer was never contacted by your office even after numerous attempts by her to communicate additional key information that was not included in the ISP report?

Response:  “Thank you for your email. Your email has been directed to our press office which handles these inquiries.  You should contact the press office directly.  When you contact them,  you can forward to them any information referenced in your email.”

Now that the indicators point to the Attorney General having no concern over the ISP failures in their so-called investigation it’s time to expose the truth in what will be a four-part video series exposing the ISP report.

Part I is the Rob McCall Interview which we will point out the misinformation and false representations made during the interview and the lack of follow-up questions by the ISP.  The audio recording of these interviews has been withheld by the ISP and we are still fighting in court to get those. A copy of the ISP interviews and other records given to the Attorney General can be downloaded at this link.

• “Timekeeping for jail staff is separated from other SCSO employees.”

What timekeeping?  Where are those records?  Why didn’t the ISP ask for copies of this so-called Timekeeping evidence? The treasure was asking for years and not until after these interviews were any timesheets provided to support the payroll.  A copy of the new timesheet record is found on page 4 of the ISP records at this link.

• “McCall advised when SCSO employees go 10-41 (on duty) or 10-42 (off duty) the time in which they do so does not impact how the employees are paid. SCSO are salaried employees and the 41/42 time does not impact how they’re paid. Employees go “SCSO are salaried employees and the 41/42 time does not impact how they’re paid.”

According to the FOIA response we received, the on-duty – off-duty report (log-in / log-out file), is what was used for timekeeping for payroll, which indicates either we were lied to or the ISP was lied to. The ISP bought off on McCall’s claim because they later make a note in the record that the CAD record is not used for timekeeping. The ISP failed to follow up with the Treasure on this matter and if they had they would have known the Sheriff’s Office claimed it “was” used for payroll purposes.

McCall claimed employees are salaried yet that is not true. Salaried employees do not get overtime yet the ISP never addressed this false statement.

• SIA Smit showed McCall an example where,”Erica Fimhaber, Shelby County Treasurer, noted an example where Cindy Jones, SCSO Dispatcher, “worked” 20 minutes short according to the SCSO CAD system. McCall advised there are instances where dispatchers occasionally get to work a little bit early and relieve the dispatcher who is currently working.”

The ISP made no record of questioning if this person who was relieved early should be getting paid for the time they did not work.

• “Just because an employee is off the CAD system, it does not mean that employee is not working.”

So McCall doubles down on the CAD system not being used for payroll which directly conflicts with what they told us in our FOIA request.  The ISP took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

• “All employees get their vacation and personal time at the same time and according to the contract.”

The ISP failed to address the fact this statement was not true as it relates to vacation being given according to the contract.  The forensic auditor confirmed this was not true yet the ISP missed yet another chance to point out false statements to the people they are interviewing in a criminal investigation.

• “S/A Smit showed McCall an example where Firnhaber alleged Quinton Williams, started 10/22/2019, received more time than the contract allows. Firnhaber also alleged Williams was given additional comp time for working a morning shift on Thanksgiving. McCall stated a possible explanation would be an error in CAD because by State law there must be two corrections officers working.”

Since the CAD system is not used for timekeeping why does McCall point to a possible error in that system as the cause for overpayments?  Not only did the ISP miss that point, but they also failed to ask a simple question on this claim.  What does the state law about corrections have to do with this person getting too much money in his paycheck?

• “SIA Smit showed McCall additional examples where employees, Tyler Koonce and Justin Dudra, earned time but they may not have been listed as working according to the schedule. McCall stated a possible explanation for this would be the scheduled employee may have called in sick and Tyler covered his shift.”

We wonder why the ISP accepted a possible explanation rather than asking a simple question, do you have the timesheet for Tyler Koonce and Justin Dudra for the days in question?  If not, why not?  Most investigators focus on getting the actual explanation rather than a possible explanation.

• “McCall advised schedules provided to Fimhaber in the FOIA request were not ” final schedules” as SCSO doesn’t maintain final schedules to reflect employees calling in sick or taking personal time.”

ISP failed to ask what “schedules” have to do with actual payroll records, such as timesheets.  How special is it that they didn’t maintain final schedules to reflect employees calling in sick or taking personal time?  With no such record being maintained how did they track these issues for payroll? Another missed opportunity by the ISP.

• “After selling the firearms, it was discovered it was the wrong thing to do and all money was refunded to those who purchased the firearms.”

Discovered it was wrong?  The ISP did not ask how they discovered it was wrong but the more important question should have been what law permits you to sell seized weapons?  They asked nothing about the seized weapons sold in 2014, which points to a pattern of practice.

• “All originally seized firearms are back in SCSO evidence and all money has been appropriately refunded from the Shop with a Cop account.”

The ISP makes no reference to confirming they put eyes on all the firearms allegedly being back in the Sheriff’s Office.  The FOIA responses we received indicated missing weapons prior to the investigation. As far as all the money being refunded, clearly, they failed to cross-reference payments made, deposited, and refunded as those numbers don’t match.

We went through these matters with the Shelby County Treasurer and you can watch the video below.