however, is seemingly inconsistent with an earlier deposition of Alburger, during which she stated that it had been her practice, when submitting receipts of Diehl's which had information on the back of them, to follow one of three procedures:
(1) tape the receipt on one side to a blank sheet of paper, so that the receipt could be flipped over and the back could be read;
(2) type the explanation which appeared on the back of the receipt into the voucher form; or
(3) type the explanation at the top of the page. Id. at 124.
69. The evidence adduced at trial is inconclusive on the issues of who wrote the penciled information on the Spats receipts or when that information was written. It is clear, however, that this method of justifying expenses is contrary to DRPA policy. TT, 4/12/88 at 69.
70. At no time during the internal audit did Auchter, or any other DRPA official or employee, question Alburger regarding Diehl's submission of the Spats receipts. Id. at 128.
71. On the basis of his audit, Auchter concluded that Diehl and Brawley had each submitted approximately $ 500 to $ 1,000 worth of "questionable" receipts. TT, 4/12/88 at 70.
72. By letter dated September 8, 1982, addressed to Richard B. Craddock from Kelly, the DRPA advised Craddock that the Audit Committee had directed that he be terminated. J-XI. The Audit Committee made this determination based on the evidence in the Touche Ross Draft Report of expense account abuses on the part of Craddock. 4/18/88 at 105.
73. Craddock was "a month to month employee" who did not have an employment contract which provided for a hearing before termination. Accordingly, no such hearing was held. Id.; TT, 4/14/88 at 139.
74. Diehl and Brawley did have employment contracts which provided for a pre-termination hearing. P-41; P-42. A similar employment contract was held by plaintiff.
75. On September 15, 1982, an Audit Committee meeting was convened. The purpose of this meeting, as described in the minutes of a Board of Commissioner's meeting which was held the same day, P-19, was two-fold:
(1) "to provide Mr. Gaffigan, . . ., an opportunity to appear before the Audit Committee and to respond to certain charges and allegations that are part of the TRANSCRIPT prepared in the Matter of LORETTA DADINO"; and
(2) "to receive a Report presented by Mr. Auchter, Vice President and Treasurer, concerning the staff committee's continuing review and evaluation of the expense account records of employees of the Delaware River Port Authority." P-19.
76. At the conclusion of the September 15, 1982 Audit Committee meeting, the Committee decided to make the following report and recommendation to the full Board.
76. First, while the Committee found Gaffigan's expense vouchers "well documented and in proper order," it considered his "performance as the Supervisor of Ms. Dadino . . . to be inadequate." Accordingly, the Committee recommended that Gaffigan "be issued a strong reprimand in letter form for what it considered inadequate performance of managerial duties and responsibilities." Id.
78. Second, the Committee found that "the expense account vouchers submitted by Mr. Diehl, . . ., and Mr. Brawley, . . ., contained significant irregularities and that they were not in accordance with the established practice and regulations of DRPA." Accordingly, the Committee "recommended that charges be preferred against Mr. Diehl and Mr. Brawley and that appropriate hearings be conducted in accordance with the terms of their Employment Contracts." P-19.
79. The minutes of the September 15, 1982 Board of Commissioners meeting reflect that the Board adopted the Audit Committee's Recommendations. P-19.
80. By letter dated October 26, 1982, addressed to Gaffigan from William J. Doyle, Chairman of the DRPA, Gaffigan was issued a reprimand, informing him that his supervision of plaintiff had been inadequate, and that he had been relieved of his duties as Assistant Director of Marketing Services and reassigned to the position of Manager, Industrial and Export Development. J-XVI.
81. Gaffigan resigned shortly after receiving this reprimand.
82. By letters dated October 20, 1982, addressed to Diehl and Brawley from Scullin, Diehl and Brawley were notified of charges filed against them by President Kelly, seeking their discharge from employment with the DRPA. J-XIVA; J-XVA. These letters were sent per the instructions of Kelly, J-XIVB; J-XVB, who was acting in accordance with the direction of the Audit Committee and Board of Commissioners. Id.; P-19.
83. These letters informed Brawley and Diehl that the charges against them would be heard "by the Delaware River Port Authority," and notified the men of their right to appear at their disciplinary hearing with legal counsel of their choosing. Id.
84. After receiving the October 20, 1982 letters, Diehl and Brawley hired attorneys. The attorneys appeared at the disciplinary hearings for these men, and "made it very clear that their clients had not falsified any expense account vouchers . . . and . . . advised their clients not to cooperate with [the] investigation or to appear before the Audit Committee." TT, 4/18/88 at 108 (Robb testifying).
85. Upon learning that Diehl and Brawley would not testify or cooperate, Chairman Robb decided to refer the matter to the then District Attorney for Philadelphia, Edward Rendell. Id. at 109. Robb met with Rendell, who advised him that jurisdiction over the matter in question would more properly rest with the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey. Id.
86. Thereafter, Robb instructed the DRPA's attorney, Hersh Koslov, to refer the matter to the New Jersey Attorney General. Id. at 109. As noted earlier, See para. 42 supra, the Attorney General had already subpoenaed expense account records from the DRPA.
87. After referring the matter to the Attorney General, Robb and the Audit Committee determined that the DRPA would not proceed further against Diehl and Brawley to achieve their termination until such time as the Attorney General reported his findings. Id. at 112.
88. Robb, during his trial testimony, gave the following explanation why he and the Audit Committee chose to refer the cases of Diehl and Brawley to the Attorney General, in lieu of pursuing further administrative action against these men:
My feeling at this point was that if you didn't get cooperation, you, with the powers that we had, which were voluntary, you weren't going to get to the bottom of it.
My view was, as I have stated twice before, public monies were misappropriated here and they were law enforcement authorities in New Jersey. They had the powers to enforce the law.