Verrengia said the lottery corporation entrusted the proper conduct of the Jan. DuPuis and solidifies what many legislators on the committee believed from the outset - that he was unfairly accused of being grossly negligent.” “We were just provided a copy … and will be discussing it” with the agency’s board of directors, said Tara Chozet, the lottery’s director of public relations and social media.īut Verrengia said Friday that the auditors’ report “clearly vindicates Mr. Lottery officials did not comment Friday on specifics in the report. “The CLC will vigorously defend itself against any allegations to the contrary,” Stone told them. Lottery officials deny DuPuis’ allegations, the auditors said in their report, adding that Matthew Stone, the lottery’s general counsel, had told them “there has been zero retaliation” by anyone at the lottery against DuPuis. DuPuis was guilty of ‘gross neglect in the execution of his duties’ is warranted and whether CLC retaliated against Mr. The auditors stopped short of making a final finding on DuPuis’ claims, and said the CHRO “is the appropriate independent authority to definitely determine whether the circumstances that resulted in the conclusion that Mr. DuPuis’ issues with CLC leadership began shortly after he pointed out the vulnerabilities in the 5 Card Cash game in January of 2015.”
DuPuis began working at CLC in 1997, and had never been disciplined for any reason. The Department of Consumer Protection that the mistakes in the JanuSuper Draw were caused by human error and that the entire team should have caught the error. In addition, when we asked CLC management for any communication or documentation on how they determined the gross neglect standard, they did not produce anything to support the standard. “CLC did not provide a clear explanation of how it arrived at the gross neglect charge. The specific charge of ‘gross neglect’ had never been leveled against any other CLC employee in its history.
On Friday, state auditors John Geragosian and Rob Kane wrote to Verrengia and Fasano, telling them: “Through our review, we concluded that the charge of gross neglect and the associated administrative leave with pay could have resulted from arbitrary or retaliatory motives.
0 kommentar(er)
