Cass County Sheriff's Office Facts and Findings Description: Complaint of working conditions at the Cass County Social Service Child Protective Services Unit. ‘The Findings are as follows: 1 10. i. On April 11, 2019, JENNIFER ALDINGER from the Cass County Social Service CPS ‘Unit submits her letter of resignation to the Human Resource Director. ALDINGER alleges that the working conditions in the unit are “hostile” towards staff. ALDINGER alleges that in a meeting with RICK VAN CAMP, ALDINGER was told to, “Keep her head down and her mouth shut,” and to “Do as you are told.” She states that she was told that workers who have questioned management in the past no longer work for Cass County Social Services. ” ALDINGER accuses CPS management of ethical violations for holding off on assigning cases for over two weeks after receiving them. ‘The Cass County Sheriff's Office was requested to investigate the allegations of a hostile ‘working environment. Line staff members of the CPS unit were interviewed about the allegations. Most, if not all members, felt that the working environment in the CPS Unit could be considered hostile to a point. They stated that they are expected to complete their work even though some situations make it very difficult, if not impossible to do. They also described the unit conditions as extremely stressful and fee! that the morale is very low. Staff members stated that the reasons for these conditions were because of the large amount of cases assigned to each staff member, and the lack of support they are receiving from the supervisors and management of the unit, Staff members claim that they are getting an unmanageable amount of eases assigned to them, and that the supervisors are not around to help them when they are needed. They also fear being reprimanded if they ever question supervisor/management decisions. Staff members believe that the ideas that they bring up don’t matter to supervisors or management. Staff members said in order for them to close a case, they need to meet with their direct supervisor and go through the case with them. They stated that direct supervisors are always being pulled away from the staff members by upper management, without notice, making it impossible for a staff member to close a case. They feel that management does not value the staff members’ time. Staff members said that if they had the time and support they need from supervisors and management, it would make the caseload not as much of an issue that it is now. ‘Theystated that with proper supervision, they would be able to work with their supervisors efficiently, closing out cases ina timely manner. 12, Staff members also stated that they don’t feel comfortable going to upper management to discuss matters, or close cases out with them if necessary. They feel intimidated by upper management, If upper management attend team meetings, the staff members will not verbally participate in the discussion for fear of being yelled at. 13. Staff members feel like they are being treated poorly by supervisors/management. Staff feel like they are not valued and can be replaced quickly. 14, The majority of the staff members said that they are currently, or think about looking for other employment. Others stated that they have already found new employment, and are going to be leaving the CPS Unit soon. All responded that the reason they are leaving, or ‘want to leave, is because of the management of the unit. They also stated that they would not recommend to anyone that they apply for a position at the CPS for the same reason. 15, Direct supervisors were interviewed. They agreed that the amount of the cases assigned to staff is very high. It was stated that the amount of the work assigned, and the expectation for the staff to be able to handle the workload, was unmanageable. They also agreed that more time is needed to be set aside for them to “staff” cases so the staff members could close cases in a more efficient manner. ‘They also believed that there might be problems with staff members and upper management, but they stated that there have not been any specific issues brought to their attention. Sergeant Joel Stading Cass County Sheriff's Office Office of Professional StandardsOFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CASS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICH, FARGO, ND DESCRIPTION OF INVESTIGATION: ASSIST OTHER AGENCIES AGENCY NAME: CASS COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN THE CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES (ces) UNIT DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT: DATE COMPLAINT MADE: APRIL 11, 2018 DATE OF SHERIFF’ S OFFICE INVOLVEMENT: APRIL, 16, 2019 TNVESTIGATOR: SERGEANT JORL, STADING syNopsis: on April 11, 2019; an employee of the Cass County Social Service Child Protection Services (CPS) Unit, made a claim of a hostile working environment, and unethical issues, in the CPS Unit. at the time of this complaint, the employee was on adainistrative leave, but decided to resign from the employee's position before any formal discipline was given by the employee’s supervisor. This complaint was in a xesignation letter that the employee sent to the Cass County Boman Resource (HR) Director. At the request of the HD Director, the Cass County Sheriff's Office was asked to investigate the allegations made in the letter. HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMEN? DEFINED: In United states labor law, a hostile work envizonmont exists when one's behavior within a workplace creates an environment that is difficult or uncomfortable for ancther person to work in, due to discrimination. Conon complaints in sexual harasoment lawsuits include fondling, suggestive remarks, sexually sliggestive photos displayed in the workplace, use of sexual language, or off-color jokes. Small matters, annoyances, and isolated incidents are usually not considered statutory violations of the discrimination laws. For a violation to imposa ability, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to a reasonable person. An ewployer can bo held liable for failing to prevent these workplace conditions, unless it can prove that it attempted to prevent ‘the harasament and that the employee failed.to take advantage of existing harassment counter-measures or tools provided by the employer.) A hostile work environment may also be created when management acts in a manner designed to make an employee quit in retaliation for sone action. For example, if an employee reported safety violations at work, was injured, attempted to join a union, or reported regulatory violations by management, and management's response was to harass and preseure the employes to quit. Employers have tried to force employees to quit by imposing unwarranted discipline, reducing hours, outting wagea, ox transferring the complaining employee to a distant work location. The United States Supreme Court stated in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc. that Title Vil is “hot a general civility code.” Thue, federal law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. Rather, the conduct must be so objectively offensive aa to alter the conditions of the individual's employment. The conditions of employment are altered only if the harassment culminates in a tangible employment action or is sufficiently severe or pervasive.DEEINITION OF HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONWEN®: Danelcone or offensive behavior in the workplace, which causes one or more employees to fee! uncomfortable, scared, or intimidated in their place of employment: REQUIREMENTS FOR A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMEN A hostile work environment ig created by a boss or coworker whose actions, Gommunication or behavior make doing your job impossible. This means that the behavior Gere the texas, conditions, and/or reasonable expectations of a comfortable work envizonment for employees. DETATES on or around March 29, 2019, an employee of the Cass County Social Sexvice CPS Unity faentified as JENNIFER ALDINGER, was placed on administrative leave, for possible Gielations on how she collected information. Prior to any resolution of her Zuspension, ALDINGER decided to resign from her position, and sent the Casa County HR Director, Cindy Stoick, her letter of resignation on April 11, 2019. In that letter, ALDINGER expressed several areas of concern she had as to how the CPS Unit was being fan by the supervisors, how cases were being assigned to the unit bringing up ethical {iolations, and a hostile working environment for the CPS line staff to work in. Below Ys an abbreviated version of the zesignation letter from ALDINGER. The full letter will be added to this report as an attachment. April 11: Letter of Resignation ALDINGER sent CINDY SIOICK her letter of resignation from Cass County social Services (css) CPS Unit. 1, Yn the letter, ALDINGER claims hostile work environment and ethical concerns created by management at CCSS. 2. Names RICK VanCAMP and LINDA DORFF directly. 3, Claims that on March 5, while discussing a case with VANCAMP, she questioned whether a full assesoment was necessary even though conditions didn’t suggest it. WANCAMP stated that he misread the report, but said that a full assessment would be good practice for ALDINGER. 4, ALDINGER stated that she didn’t agree with doing a full assesment when it was not hecessary because stie felt it was a gross misuse of government funds and resources, as well as a disservice to the family involved. 5, BUDINGER states that due to her questioning VANCAMP, she was told that workers who questioned management at CCSS no longer work there. She claims that VANCAMP also fold her to just, “Seep her head down and mouth shut,” and, “Do as I am told.” this took place in VANCAMP’S office with only the two of them present. 6. ALDINGER also stated she had issues with an e-mail regarding sandbag duties at the Gass County Road Department. She states that she felt the e-mail sent out by LINDA DORFF was intimidating te workers because it made then feel that they were being forced into doing manual labor. Some staff were worried that they would have to disclose same private medical issues so they were not forced into doing something they were not able to do. 7]. ALDINGER discussed issues that she stated she had with TAMI ANDERSON. It appears ‘hat ANDERSON and ALDINGER discussed a case where ALDINGER believed that the assessment was not needed due to a false claim, but ANDERSON instructed the other Staff menber assigned to the case to continue with the assessment. ALDINGER also Stated that ANDERSON reported that ALDINGER had challenging behaviors, because RLDINGER had issues on how the Cass County pay stubs were handed out to the employees. Sho questioned as to why they were not handed out to employees in aconcealed way due to privacy issues, She stated she was told by ANDERSON that that is the way they do it at Css. 8. ALDINGER brought up her concerns about how the cases at CCSS were assigned to the staff, she claims that cases were held for an extended amount of time (2.5 weeks) prior to being assigned, and felt that they were not getting the necessary attention {hey needed in a proper amount of tine. She stated that she felt that the workers were being overloaded with cases. She stated that when she first started at CCSS She was told the average caseload per month was about 14, but she stated that some workers had 30 to 50 open cases assigned to them, and that workers were being assigned up to 15 cases in a five-day apan. ALDINGER states that she contacted MARLYS BAKER who oversees CPS Policy and Procedures with the State of North Dakota and informed her of the concerns she has discussed in this letter. she stated that she was then approached by LINDA DORFF fn what she described as a loud and domineering way, and stated that DOREF called hor insubordinate. ALDINGER was asked for her county badge, and was escorted out of the building. She described DOREF as acting in an unprofessional manner and being intimidating. 10 ALDINGER states in a meeting she had with CHIP AMMERMAN, that AMMERMAN demanded to \ jmow how she would handle the assigning of excessive cases, but responded to him that she did not have the experience of assigning cases so she could not answer his question. tn the zest of her resignation letter ALDINGER states that there are others in the cess work staff who are also being “bullied” at CCSS. She states that AMMSRMAN requested her to identify some staff, but she refused to provide any names of Goworkers, due to her believing this was an attempt to identify workers to retaliate 1 against. ‘As previously stated, the Cass County, Sheriff's Office was requested to conduct an investigation into these allegations sround April 15. Due to sone position thanges at the Case County Sheriff's Office, this case was not given to me to investigate until T was re-assigned to the Office of Professional Standards around June 18, 2019. After reviewing this’ complaint, I began to contact meubers of the CPS Unit to begin interviewing the employees (staff) who worked with ALDINGER, to diecuss: thése allegations, and determine if her accusations were legitimate concerns. ‘As I began to communicate with the’CPS staff requesting intexviews with them, I began te experience some resistance from some staff for interviews. Several staff menbers wore not confortable discusaing the ongoing issues within the CPS Unit. The reasons Gor the resistance to interviews wore, some staff believed that these same concerns have been brought up before, but nothing ever gets done to correct the problens Gthers were resistant because they believed that if they spoke out, there would be Qetaliation against them from the supervisors, and management of that unit. To gain tha trust of the staff, I informed them that I would be conducting these interviews without audio xecording their statements, along with formatting my report in a way qinere their answers, and information, would not reflect directly back to them, but qould be Anformation I received by the group as a whole. This method seemed to make the staff comfortable, and all agreed to speak with me. This interview tactic was discussed with Cass County Adninistrator, ROBERT WILSON. He was informed as to the reason I would be conducting my interviews that way, and MR. {WIESON approved of this method so to gain as mich information as possible. Interviews with CPS staff started on July 3, and continued for several weeks due to Seheduling conflicts, members being absent, or vacation issues.‘topics discussed in the interviews were about the allegations sade by ALDINGER, along with other jssues such as, but not limited to, employee relations, employee and Supervisor relations, working envizonment, stress and morale levels in the CPS Unit. During the interviews, I was made aware of the way the CPS Unit was divided into two teams, with approximately six members on each team. One team supervised by RICK Yancaup, and the other by TAMARA ANDERSON. LINDA DORFF is the Division Supervisor, and CAIP AMMERMAN, the Social Service Director. Most if not all staff stated that they felt the stress level was very high, and the morale level was very low. The reasons given focused on two areas: the large amount Of cases aseigned to each staff member; and the interaction that the staff has with supervisors, and upper management. staff stated that the amount of cases they are being assigned to investigate is very lange, which makes it diffloult for them to work the cases properly, and in a timely nanter. Reasons given from staff for the increased case assignment were the population Groth in the area, arid not adding additional staff to the CPS Unit to keep up with Ene case dnorease. Several staff members made the coment that aven if OFS were to get additional staff, they would most likely still be short staffed on a regular Dasis, due to the turnover rate with staff in that unit. What appeared to be the main cause for the stress and morale issues in the unit Focused on the relationship between staff, supervisor, and upper management. The issues brought to my attention are aa follows: 1. Lack of access to supervisors- the etaff nesbers stated that access to the supervisors is critical, but is very limited due to the supervisors being in meetings, or away and not available. staff members informed me that in order for them to complete @ case and close it,’ they need to do what they refer to. as “staff” the case with their supervisor. Tf a Supervisor is not available to “staff” the case, they are unable to close the file. Staft menbers informed me that on several occasions during the “staffing” time that they. aet up with their supervisor, the time ie interrupted by DORFF or AMMGRMAN, pulling the supervisor away from the staff member, making it difficult oz impossible for them to close a file and complete ‘their work. 2. Lack of supervision— Staff members’ stated that the supervision is* lacking when they go to their Supervisors to get guidance or want to ask questions about situations pertaining toa case, Some menbers say their direct supervisor, TAMI ANDERSON, is unable to make decisions, is unable to give guidance, or direction when needed. They state that because of this, they will go to another supervisor, which is sometimes even from a different unit, in the Case County Social Service systen, to get the help they are looking for. Others state when they'go to their direct supervisor, RICK YaneAMP, and during the conversation they have with him, if they question something YanCAMP geta defensive, makes a statement ouch as, “This is the way we have always Gone it,’ or, “Stop, we don’t do it that way,” and will put his hand up in a, “Be quiet,” position, eo the staff menber quits talking. They state that because of this type of interaction, they do not feel that he is always approachable, and the suggestions or. ideas from staff menbers do not have any meaning or value. Several hesbers also mentioned that if the support from the supervisors were better, it would make the situation with the large caseload assigned to them, a lesser issue than what it is 3. Employee/employee relations~ All that were interviewed agreed that the staff members on both teams work well together, ageist and support each other when necessary. There were no concerns brought to my attention about employee relations within the two teams.4, Supervisor/employee xelations~ When staff members were asked to describe the way the supervisor/employee relationship is, the staff stated they feel this 1s the area of most concern. Along with the issues listed above, staff menbers stated they feel as if theix opinions mean nothing to management when they try to make suggestions. If they question management, it will be held against them, and they will be reprimanded. Some made the comment that they have to be very careful as to what they say around management or they feel they will be retaliated against. staff stated that when they do bring up concerns, such as the caseload assigned to them, they are called whiners and told that the staff members have negative attitudes. T was informed that management has told the staff that the high caseload is a staff performance issue, and not a numbers issue. Although there are concerns with staff and their direct supervisors, it appears that there might be a larger issue between upper management and line staff. During the datervies, staff members expressed concern with LINDA DORFF and how she is treating them. Staff described her demeanor with them as being mean, intimidating, unprofessional, verbally and nonverbally rude, along with fake, controlling, loud and aggressive. Staff menbers say on several occasions while they are “staffing” a case with their supervisor, DORF will interrupt them and DORFF will pull the supervisor away from the staff member for something she wants them to do. This issue has been Giscussed previously in thie zeport, but again staff say that makes it impossible to do their job if they do not get tima with their supervisor. other complaints made are that DORFF will say bad things out ioud about staff menbers to other staff members, and even in front of the person she is talking about. I was fold that she de also very loud around the offices of the staff menbers. They say DOREY is a distraction the way she will pound on their office doors, and talk loudly. The staff monbore say that DOREF acts like she takes priority over everything and their work time is not as important as hers. the majority of the staff meshers say that they try to avoid her if they can. Staff menbera also discussed the relationship ‘they have with CIP BMMERMAN. Staff members stated that they have Limited interaction with AMMERMAN, but also described him ao being intimidating, arrogant, and disrespectful. I was informed that ANMERMAN deals with the intake process mostly, limiting his contact with the CPS staff. I was Unformed that the majority of interaction they have with AMMERMAN is during meetings he attends with CPS staff. Several staff menbere stated that they do not verbally participate dn the meetings that AIGRMAN and DORFF are present in, because they do hot want to get into trouble by him or DORFF for things they might bring up for discussion. I asked the staff members how they felt like they were being treated by the supervisors, apd management. of the CPS Unit. Some of the answers were: Disrespected, unappreciated, completely disposable, replaceable at any time, terrible, not at all and treated as just a number. valued, whe staff members were asked if they have, or are in the process of seeking employment: elsewhere. The responses I got were that some have already found different employment and will be leaving the Cass County CPS Unit soon. While others stated they are currently looking, ox think about leaving the unit every day. The main reason given was because of the relationship between staff and management. Another question asked to staff members was if they knew someone who was in this field of work looking for employment, and there was an open position in their unit, would they suggest that person apply for the job? The answer from everyone was, “NO.” Again, the xeason for this answer was because of the way the nit was run by manayement ‘and the relationship between management. and employees.After interviewing the staff members, I spoke with the direct supervisors for each team, RICK VanCAMP, and TAMERA ANDERSON. In my interviews with them, we discussed the letter that was written by ALDINGER, and if any of the accusations: ALDINGER stated were legitimate concerns. VanCAMP stated that he was surprised to hear what ALDINGER was accusing him of saying during the meeting between the two of them, but denies the accusation. What was talked about at length was the issue with the amount of cases that were being assigned to staff members, and the amount of time they were able to give the staff hembers to assist then in closing cases. Both agreed that the amount of cases being Given to staf members was a real concern, and was a reason for the stress/morale igoues. It was stated that assigning.the staff the large amount of cases and expecting them to be abla to manage auch a large caseload, was the fault of Supervisor/Management. They also agreed that the time for case staffing was frequently being interrupted, making it difficult or impossible for cases to be closed. They agreed that a majority of the interruptions were caused by upper management. pulling fhem away from staff members when they were “staffing” cases with them. I was informed that within the last few weeks, the CPS management has implemented a hew procedure, which limits the amount of cases assigned to staff menbers at, around ten each. This is implemented so staff members can focus on a smaller amount of cases, and reduce the workload for them. In addition, to mit the amount of staffing interruptions, the upper management is requesting the supervisors give them a copy of the supervisors’ schedules, so they know when the supervisors have time reserved for staff members. YanCAME and ANDERSON were asked if they see any issues of concern between upper management and staff members. Each answered this similarly. They stated that staff lenbers have brought up issues/complaints to them in the past, but no specific issues directly, just what was described as hearsay. It was stated that they have not ever Seen any issues diréctly. It was also said, that it appears that the relationship between staff and upper management has gotten better over the last -year. Although the direct supervisors feel that the relationship between staff members and management are good or have been getting better, the issues brought up by all staff members seem to be igsues that the whole unit is dealing with. During the interviews, all the staff menbers described the issues or eituations occurring in the unit in the game way. They all made it sound as if these issues were still going ‘on at, or’ around the time I interviewed them. With the responses being similar from all. interviewed, it appeara that the problems discussed are being observed by all staff members. CONCLUSION: JENNIFER ALDINGER made accusations of a hostile working environment for staff in the ops Unit, and management naking an unethical decision to delay case assigmuents for approximately two weeks. As faz as the unethical issues which related to the delaying case assignments, I was unable to determine if thie process, which I was told was to help staff members get Caught up with workload that was already assigned, fit that criteria. when T asked Staff menbers and supervisors if it was againet their department, or state policy, to delay case assignments, no one knew that answer. If this is not a process against any policy, it appears that management was trying to do something to help lessen the staff's’ workload. As far as the hostile work environment for staff members: I£ seme conditions for a hestile work environment are making it impossible for someone to do his/her job, as well as making someone feel uncomfortable or intinidated, then there might be some zeal issues that need to be addressed.The concera that was brought up by staff monbers stating that theix scheduled time to “staff” cases with dizect supervisors is frequently being interrupted by upper management, and are pulling supervisors away from time they had reserved for staff members. Thia makes it extremely difficult, if not Impossible, to close cases that are ready to be closed. This delays them from going onto other cases, which need to be addressed in a timely manner, reducing the efficiency of the. staff menber’s work performance Finally, the relationship between staff, supervisors and upper management: During the interviews, the responses I received from staff members was that ‘there is a disconnection between the staff members, supervisors, and management, making'the etaff members feel like they are on their own. Staff members also state they try to avoid, and do not approach upper management unless necessary. They feel intimidated by them, and say that if they do pomathing that ‘upper management does not agree with, they belieye that they Will be yelled at, and’ they worry about being xeprimanded. Most staff members, qno have been around for eome time said that they have felt this way for several years now. ATTACHMENT 1. better of resignation from JENNIFER ALDINGER. 2. Exit interview and letter of resignation from ASHLEY PETERSON (07-15-19) outgoing 3. CPS Unit staff menber. fxit interview of CHAD FISHER (8-27-19) outgoing CPS Unit staff member. SERGEANT JOEL STADING Offica of Professional Standards as/akbStoick, Cindy Jennifer Aldingér From: se Thursday, April 11,2019 8:44 PM To: Stoiek, Cindy: Peterson, Chad Subjects Resignetion ‘CAUTION: This enal origioted fom outside ofthe organization, Do not click irks or open atichments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe Cindy, ‘This email is to inform you of my resignation from my position with Cass County Social Services effective April 12th, 2019, Cass County Social Services is the LOth County I have had the opportunity to collaborate with in the State of North Dakota. In the 6 years Ihave been in Family Services I have never witnessed such alarming hostility towards workers, ethical concems created by management or disregard for the well-being of the general populace, On March 29th, 2019, I sought out HR for assistance with what I felt to be hostile work environment and inappropriate conduct on the part of Rick Van Camp and Linda Dorff. On March Sth, while staffing cases, Rick told me to "keep my head down and mouth shut" and "do as I'm told" when I presented concerns to him regarding the necessity of a full assessment where the environment did not present true danger to the child and this was clairified from early on in the report. During the meeting Rick acknolwedged that the case should not have been assigned and that he mistead the report. Rick stated that a full assessment was a good thing to give me practice in completitig CPS assessments, which I feel is a gross misuse of government funds anid resources as well as a disservice to the family. Due to my questioning, Rick informed me that workers who have questioned management fi the past no longer work with Cass County Social Services and this was when ho stated the prior quotes to me. This was addressed during the meeting on April Ist, 2019, with yourself, Tami Anderson, Littda Door and Chip Ammerman present. I was essentially told that it was my word against Rick's as there were no other people present during the conversation. Idid not have the opportunity to file a grievance against Rick in regards to this matter due to the immediacy of my ejection from CSS later on that day. Barlier that day, March 29th, I had also discussed the concems I hed with an email sent out by Linda Dorff. Linda stated that she expected workets to volunteer during business hours to sandbag or she would "be forced to assign workers". ‘This cause panic in more than one worker, one of whom informed me of her health concerns and was worried that she would have to disclose this concern to management in order to avoid manual labor. As per our discussion I understand this is considered to be "other assigned duties, but the email presented in a way to intimidate-workers into submission, which Linda acknowledge later that day in another email was "unpopular", Tami Anderson accuséd me of confroriting her regarding a couple of matters, ‘The first was regarding a case in which a child falsely reported information. attempted to advocate for the ftunily and stated that I believed, due to policy, that the case should be terminated in progress, as the report was validated as false early on in the assessment, Tami instructed the other worker involved to complete a full assessment on the family to "reilect the work (she) put into the case” which was merely a phone call and meeting in office to discuss with the child 1‘the Serioustess of false reporting as requested by the parent. Tami disregarded concerns that this would result in the family having a full CPS assessment on their record for information found very early on in the assessment processes to be false and fo ther reported concerns, Taiti stated that it did not matter whether the family had a terminated or full assessment in their recorded history and I voiced my disagreement in that matter as well, as ‘when a new report comes into CCSS the family’s history is reviewed. Tami also reported challenging behaviors on my part due to me voicing my concems with the way paystubs are distributed in the agency. Tami had a stack of exposed paystubs for several workers in her hands and was shuffling through them to present me with mine, Lasked why these were not concealed as it is private information and was informed that it had been a prior concem presented by other workers, which had gone unaddressed, and this was simply the way things were handled at CCSS. am accused of breaking confidentiality for running statistics on reports in an attempt to assist in the development of pods within the unit. These statistics showed the date report was assigned to a worker, which ‘worker it was assigned to, how long the case has beet open and the category level of the report (A,B,C). These statistics are available to all employees with access to FRAME and in prior employment I had been encouraged to review these statistics to become a more competent and effective worker. The only identifying information in these reports is the last name of the case, which is the way the case is registered on FRAME and identified during unit batching in the mornings, in which workers are required to discuss the details of the cases they are assigned with other workers who have no beatings in the ease, At rio time did I review or seek out elientele's personal information, ‘These reports informed me that there had been up to 70 cases assigned to workers within a two month period, When I began working with CCSS I was informed a full caseload is approximately 14 cases per month. Workers had caseloads of 30-50 cases open at one time when Ibegan. When I attempted to address this concern during the April Ist meeting Chip deflected and reported that this was a performance issue with the workers. Workers have reported to me that they feel unable to clear these reports as they ate getting 1-2 new cases per day or unable to mieet with supervisors to staff the cases. CCSS determined that they would go against policy and procedure and withhold cases from workers for 2.5 weeks due to the workload that was being placed on them, or rather, as Chip attests, their failure to perform effectively. 1 was informed that this was the second time within a year that CCSS has withheld the assignment of cases. During a unit meeting held on March 13th, Rick Van Camp was questioned about the liability to workers when receiving cases where concerns were weeks old. Rick informed the unit that workers, supervisors and the director would alt share in that liability, though workers had no say in the matter. Tt was asked by a fellow worker ifthe state was aware of a governnient agency refusing to follow the duties that were entrusted to it. Rick informed the unit that "Chip was not advertising this". Rick informed workers that he expected there to be approximately 100 cases in a literal pile by the time they began assigning again and this would mean that workers would be assigned up to 10 cases in 1 day, as there were 9.75 fully traiied full-time workers, in addition to the cases that would be assigned on their regular batching days for the week. A typical betching week for a worker is 5 or more cases due to regular assignment plus any emergency cases they take on during the week, ‘This meant workers were looking at being assigned up to 15 cases within a span of five days. ‘Due to the directives being from the Diector himself, as stated in person by supervisors and via email sent by ‘Tami Anderson to the unit, I contacted Marlys Baker, who oversees CPS policy and procedure with the state of North Dakota, to ensure the state was aware of the disregard of CSS to address the incoming concerns of child abuse and neglect for an extended period of time. Marlys was not aware and contacted CCSS. Shortly there after, within hours, Linda Dorff came into my office, very obviously upset as her tone of voice was loud and Stem and her posture was domineering. I was called insubordinate by Linda Dorff and asked for my badge and escorted from the building after being unable to meet with Chip immediately due to you not being 2available. 1 was told thet 1 was rot yet fired but that I could collect the rest of my personal belongings after a meeting with herself and Chip on Monday. I asked whether you would be informed of such a meeting and Linda stated "you know her number". Linda presented in an unprofessional manner during this encounter, as she stood over me in an intimidating fashion while I was attempting to cell you and spoke over me while I was attempting to address hier posed questions and concems. [have it under good authority that I ain not the only individual treated in such matter, as I was informed just today that another worker who followed CCSS procedure for reporting concems within the heirarchy and advocating for clients rights was recently written up for insubordination as well. This worker first attempted to address the concerns with her direct supervisor then spoke to Linda, but was still vaitten up. ‘Many of the workers describe Linda as & "bully" and report that she is of no assistance when discussing concerns. A meeting was held to address my supposed offenses which I did audio record. In this meeting Chip demanded to know how I would have gone about handling the assignment of excessive cases, After being asked three times T informed him that I don't have the knowledge or experience to provide him with an answer, as I have never assigned cases, but disregarding policy and procedure resulting in ethical discord, felt by many of the workers as per their reports, would not have been how I handled the situation, Chip requested that I submit names of workers and information to him in my defense and I did refuse the names, as truly feel this is an attempt at retaliation for voicing ethical concems and do not wish that upon the already overburdened CPS workers of Cass County. Tam unable to provide any supporting documents to him as I no longer have access to FRAME in which my supposed breach of confidentiality was conducted. And thus it boils down to my word against Management's, Thave been placed on suspension for two weeks and have not been contacted by CCSS with any information regarding the matter, though [ had been informed that Chip was to have all information to him within a weeks time. I had to take it upon myself to follow up with Chip and yourself to find out what the status of my employment was. J am resigning due to the appalling behavior exhibited by the management of the Family Services Department of Cass County Social Services. Cass County's blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of children and families they have been entrusted to serve is something that I do not feel | can continue to be a part of. In addition, I have reached my limit with CCSS's accusations, threats and retaliation based behavior directed against me for reporting ethical concerns to supervisors and those who have been entrusted to cnsure the safety of children within our community by developing and overseeing the policy and procedure of Child Protection Services in the State of North Dakota, I have no intention of returning to the fear based environment that is Cass County Social Services. Please note that this is effective immediately, Jennifer Aldinger On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 11:54 AM Stoick, Cindy wrote: Cindy Stotck HR Director Cass County Government stoieke@casscountynd.go 701-241-5736EXIT INTERVIEW CASS COUNTY| GOVERNMENT ae Ashley Peterson aopress 144 wooderest Dy N. pepr_FS Separation Date_“b-4-T4_F-3I-14 Length of Employment at Cass County_ ll W/LAS $+ mo. = Specific Reason for Leaving TOVIC_Work fusivenment butlymng —— Manageme, yelte x pA Sia Or Superis tory civic actlace ord. Ais oe # wed at On agency k adenine where {hia Your decision to feave was most influenced by (check all that apply): ae 2 __Beiter Pay Bettor Benefits — please explain. Spouse Transfer —— Continue Education Retirement — SE Bate Wating Conon pigs anlar @ healthy wor. rN ONMert Where Te Ty eee ee OA UI ERe PAULI Ad Ad 4 iA o Hasters Tevet one A position 7 eee Please make any comments you wish about your employment at Cass County ira FHIS=NG ‘Signature DateFrom: Peterson, Ashley Sent: ‘Thursday, July 18, 2019 7:29 PM To: Stoick, Cindy Subject: exit interview Dear Cindy , interview form, Please accept this correspondence as the addendum to my signed exit ss, The concerns | have are specific to Ihave a great deal of concern for the work environment of social servi Linda Dorff and her attitude and behavior. have been fearful of Linda for most of my employment due to her hostility and anger which has been expressed to me when she has been dissatisfied with my behavior, the first example is when | was allowed to go to graduate school and complete my graduate school field experience at CSS. There was some discrepancy of when | would start and | without any knowledge or il will picked the wrong day. Linda was furious and as Is her trademark, had a furious facial expression, was loud and domineering and posturing as she scolded me for upsetting her, and seemingly held a grudge as she did not look at me, make eye contact, or talk to me for weeks after although { wrote her an email apologizing - although i was unsure what i was apologizing for as it was all accidental. Linda has made comments to me about other workers bodies, stating people are “big” and static she herself is "a slob” and “disgusting” which is inappropriate. she commented on Mandee Wersinger “can’t get rid of the ‘aby weight” after a miscarriage. She commented Connie Cleveland “used to be small like you.” Linda came to a baby shower at my home and called my daughter a “pork chop.” Linda stated Lisa Stremick Is a “big girl” to me when we were talking about how { was running distance with fisa. Under Linda’s supervision i was taking sick leave and she asked why. [told her i had dermatology appointments for rosacea and she said “! thought you had a drinking problem with that red nose.” Linda most recently appeared upset when | sent an email in response to a new policy email about the way to refer to case engagement. | was aware of many concerns as a line worker from other staff about this policy, | responded all to open up discussion as i was aware several were concerned about the new policy. i arrived at work the next day and was making coffee and heard Linda “whispering” with the door wide open, everyone could hear that was in the office near her- stating my name and “she’s sending these emails” and i went in and asked her if she needed something, Very unprofessional Linda had an extremely angry face, trying to intimidate, and stated “NO 1 DONT”. | was very upset and went to my supervisor who Linda was expressing this to and asked her what was going on. Tami Anderson stated she is only trying to come to work and have a positive attitude and did not answer my question. She stated Linda was only asking where ! was that morning. ‘That makes no sense as | was in my office, Linda did not try to contact me to my knowledge as she did not call or email me and when | asked if she needed something she said no. I find this to be hostile and bullying and totally unacceptable,EXIT INTERVIEW GOVERNMENT nawe_Chad - Fischer appress_ (7056 6/% Sh SE per Separation Date_9/2.///. . Length of Employment at Cass County pbs Specific Reason forLeaving Lack of fesnsive me ogc acnt tt. es Pos Aish, wankers, ag e i we the Your decision to leave was most influenced by (check all that apply): Better Pay _— Better Benefits — please explain. ___ Spouse Transfer Continue Education Retirement ‘Better Working Conditions - please explain, other_Poer Wiens ge men? Lack # ee Sha Please make any comments you wish about your employment at Cass County L Pameles + ed betel, Eo tied we 44. chyd Thes gre ak orem Pers be Efe ; th Fadl, Bhp Signature Date