PUD, sheriff argue over theft

EPHRATA — The Grant County Sheriff's Office and Grant County Public Utility District clashed in June as detectives began seeking records and evidence regarding an allegation of theft.

The allegation involves a former utility district employee, previously assigned to the fiber optic system, suggesting he stole PUD equipment, services and materials. The sheriff's office began investigating the alleged theft in February 2005.

"During the course of this investigation, detective Kim Cook, the primary investigator on this case, has met obstacle after obstacle in obtaining documentation and evidence of this crime from employees of the PUD," Chief Deputy Dave Ponozzo wrote in a June 13 letter to PUD general manager Tim Culbertson.

The PUD initially requested the sheriff's office pay for the documents and records sought by detectives. The sheriff's office declined payment, saying the records sought are evidence in a criminal investigation.

Ponozzo said Cook is prepared to obtain a search warrant to gain the records needed for his investigation.

The PUD requested the sheriff's office discontinue its criminal investigation into the alleged theft, Ponozzo said. Culbertson denies that request was made.

Detective Cook on Tuesday confirmed the investigation is on-going.

The former employee is suing the PUD in two unrelated civil actions, including one over public records requests. A second relates to the former employee's discharge from the utility district. Both suits are pending in Grant County Superior Court.

The utility district remains determined to withhold some documents sought by Cook, citing attorney-client privilege.

Ponozzo said he has never had a victim cite attorney-client privilege when asked for information or evidence of a crime. "That is a ploy generally used by a suspect in a case when they have something to hide or don't want to reveal the truth," Ponozzo wrote.

Eric Briggs, a former PUD fiber optic system employee and current Grant County commissioner candidate, said he provided detectives with information about the former employee's alleged theft. He currently has his own civil lawsuit against the PUD, relating to his dismissal from the utility district.

"The PUD's position on (attorney-client privilege) is absolute garbage," Briggs said Tuesday. "Otherwise you could break any law you want as long as you say, 'Well, I'll sue you if you come after me.'"

He estimated losses from the alleged theft may have reached $20,000 to $30,000.

"It's irresponsible with public property potentially lost," he said of the PUD's actions. "This is a criminal investigation into the misuse, the abuse of position as a PUD employee, and the loss of items."

All known facts related to the theft allegations have been provided to detectives, Culbertson said. The sheriff's office made two requests for documents and information, he said, and the PUD fully responded to both. He called the accusations in Ponozzo's letter "particularly bothersome."

Culbertson did not return a phone message seeking further comment.

"The district simply has done nothing remotely unusual, let alone wrongful or unlawful," Culbertson wrote in a letter to the sheriff's office.

PUD spokeswoman Sarah Morford said the sheriff's office recently was provided with a contact person within the utility district to ensure further requests by detectives are fulfilled.

"There's been work done on both sides to improve the relationship," Morford said.