Transcript Tuesday

This week for Transcript Tuesday, we turn to the cross-examination of Joanne Fuller, Director for the Department of Community Justice (DCJ), Multnomah County, again, as last week, from the trial of Lea Lakeside-Scott vs. Multnomah County and Jann Brown. This testimony is from 17 November 2004. The Honorable Michael W. Mosman presiding.

Ms. Fuller is being cross-examined by George Fisher, Ms. Lakeside-Scott's counsel, about the complaint that Ms. Lakeside-Scott filed with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), some six weeks prior to be terminated. The plaintiff's contention was that the county and DCJ terminated her rather than address the issues covered in the BOLI complaint (among others).

Since Ms. Fuller was the head of the department, Mr. Fisher wanted to know what she, personally, did to investigate these accusations.

Let's see what she did, shall we?

Q. Your testimony concerning Ms. Hogue's role in this matter as it relates to her authorization, the alleged authorization by Ms. Hogue, depending on who you believe, as it relates to your statement in which you say -- I wrote it down here -- that additional access would not have been as broad, even if Ms. Hogue had permitted some access. Do you remember that part of your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. But -- and you also stated that as a result of that, you concluded that the -- again, this is a quotation I wrote, the shear magnitude of the amount of material that Mrs. Scott had access to further led you to conclude that Ms. Hogue had not given her the authorization that Mrs. Scott has testified to.

A. Yes.

Q. But the fact is that that entire argument is in fact premised on your conclusion that she did not give -- Ms. Hogue did not give Mrs. Scott that authorization, correct?

A. That thinking led me to believe that it was unlikely that Ms. Hogue had -- would have authorized that kind of access.

Q. When you reviewed the BOLI complaint and noted and admit here today that there was some concerns for you in the allegations of Mrs. Scott, why should it surprise you that somebody making the allegations that Mrs. Scott was making would want to document it as voluminously and as detailed as she possibly could?

A. Frankly, I believe that Mrs. Scott could have made BOLI complaints, but I was shocked that she would go into other people's e-mail and calendars and copy into her own file all kinds of information from other people.

Q. Well, let's give you that. Okay. Let's say just for discussion's sake here today that her access is exactly as you would characterize it, that it was wholly unauthorized and unacceptable and of great magnitude. Would your position still be the same if in fact those documents proved Mrs. Scott's claims?

A. Yes. I believe that it was totally inappropriate for her to use her access to get information, to collect information on other people on County time.

Q. Even if the allegations are sexual preference in hiring, improper contracting, denial of ergonomics, all those things, those allegations that the BOLI complaint contained could be proven or believed to be proven by Mrs. Scott by doing what she did, you still would have terminated her?

A. They were not proven.

Q. That was not my question. My question was, had they been able to prove it -- and as I understand it, you did not pursue the BOLI complaint to whether or not they were in fact true or not. You didn't look at any of the information through the prism of her allegations in the BOLI, did you?

A. County counsel pursued her BOLI complaint.

Q. So your answer is no, you did not?

A. I did not.

Now, does that make any sense at all? Taking Ms. Fuller at her word, that she had never heard such accusations before... wouldn't she want to know if such actions were taking place by her subordinates?

Hmmm... why wouldn't she want to know?

The above section is taken from the Day 2 transcript (PDF). The full transcripts are available in PDF or text format.