Confronted with multiple accusations of incompetence, mismanagement and forgery, the Inspector General of the Supreme Court of Florida has found that the Monroe County Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) program is working as well as any other GAL program in the state of Florida: "Based on these conclusions, no further action is planned by this office."
EDITOR'S NOTE: The separate local investigation by County Clerk of Courts Danny Kolhage into allegations of double-dipping by a former court reporter on the County payroll— and possible coverup by County Court Administrator Theresa Westerfield— is still in progress.
James D. Boyd, CPA and Inspector General of the Supreme Court, concluded in July that allegations of mismanagement and data-juggling made by former GAL employees and volunteers did not merit followup action by his office. But complainants say Boyd drew his conclusions and closed his investigation without even talking to them.
"It appears that there were instances of miscommunication and differences in management style and expectations; however, I do not find that this constitutes mismanagement," Boyd wrote to Emily "Mimi" Shaughnessy, a former case coordinator who resigned in disgust at the alleged "unethical behavior" of GAL administrator Alexsa Corsi-Leto.
"Further," Boyd wrote, "in evaluating the overall performance of the Sixteenth Circuit's Guardian Ad Litem program, I found that it was consistent with the overall performance of the Guardian Ad Litem programs statewide," Boyd wrote Shaghnessy.
But, according to Shaghnessy, Boyd never spoke with any of the disgruntled employees or former employees who came forth with the allegations or others involved in this whistle-blowing attempt. He only interviewed the administrators accused of mismanagement and, according to Shaughnessy, he apparently took at face value all information submitted by Corsi-Leto and her boss, County Court Administrator Theresa Westerfield— including information which was allegedly fabricated at the last minute for Boyd's eyes only, according to Carol Johnson, a Guardian Ad Litem who also requested the inquiry.
Then-Chief Judge Sandra Taylor of the 16th Judicial Circuit was also asked to investigate the matter— as she was with the court reporter double-dipping allegations— and, like Boyd, she, too, responded last February, "I can find no basis for a continuing inquiry."
But what would be important enough to cause five dedicated GALs— Kathy Lasseter, Arlene Berley, Carol Johnson, Mimi Shaughnessy and Bobbi Haugen— to resign from a program they believe is vital to protect the interests of children at risk?
A "Guardian Ad Litem" is a volunteer who is trained to represent the interests of a child caught up in some domestic or criminal problem— divorce or custody cases involving abuse or neglect, criminal cases in which there are charges of neglect or abuse, or when a child is a witness to a sexual offense committed against a minor. In the words of new GAL volunteer Howard Crane, "A GAL is like a private investigator empowered to gather information and present it to the court on behalf of the child." Crane told KWTN he has seen no evidence of anything awry in the program during the few months he has been a volunteer, and says he finds the job very rewarding.
Children are supposed to be appointed a GAL within 30 days of being placed in the program, and if a GAL is not available, they are to be discharged from the program.
Instead, say former staff and volunteers, many are left in limbo indefinitely, with as many as 75 children assigned to each staff coordinator.
"We're concerned about the children not being served," three former volunteers told KWTN in separate interviews. "It's the children who are suffering because of Leto's mismanagement."
They claim the true figures showing the number of cases assigned to volunteers was falsified by Leto and that she sent the "new" figures to Inspector Boyle in May with a memo saying that "For some reasons (sic) that I really cannot explain, the original numbers sent for January-December 1998, were erroneous. It is apparent that I did not check these figures before Sylvia sent them out."
She was referring to Sylvia Atwell, who was her secretary at that time.
Leto then went on to tell Boyd that she believed her secretary "guessed at them rather than actually counting them," a charge Atwell vehemently denies.
Atwell, now working for a local attorney, has demanded Leto retract that statement, which she considers libelous. Atwell allies say there are at least four witnesses who can testify that the data changes were Leto's, written in Leto's hand and delivered to Atwell for typing.
GALs— the volunteers, not the paid coordinators— are supposed to operate free of political constraints as they round up information on the child's behalf which may support or negate the allegations of abuse faced by parents or guardians. However, some volunteers have alleged that Corsi-Leto altered their reports before they were presented to the judge.
Since a GAL validation of one party's position may be a swing factor in a judge's decision, says Johnson, "The appointed Guardian and Circuit Director need to remain ethical and independent at all times, and not alter any information which would prohibit the judge from hearing ALL perspectives."
Another allegation: that Leto cashed a GAL Guild check for $200 and gave it to a friend's teenage daughter to buy clothes when she was going to appear as a witness in a case. Whistle-blowers say that an attempt was made to retroactively validate the expenditure, using receipts for some designer clothing from Upton's. This took place between September 1998 and April 1999, and there should be a canceled check to back up their allegations, they say.
There are also allegations that Corsi-Leto has threatened potential whistle-blowers with loss of their jobs, with slander suits and with repercussions for "stealing" case files they might want to use to document their claims against Leto.
Stay tuned.