ORIGIN

— During the first five years of this period, 1995 to 2000, the Department was engaged in a performance-based budgeting project, which reportedly entailed the added complexity of operating dual financial tracking and budgeting programs. This may be at the root of SPRF budget reporting errors that began around 1996.

— Regardless of its origins, the fact that the Department's budgeting manager, with assistance from her peers in accounting, set out in 2001 to study and understand the disparity strongly suggests that non-disclosure of SPRF monies to the DOF was not originally intended. It is clear, however, that by no later than 2003, and perhaps as early as 1999, the failure to accurately report all SPRF monies to the DOF became conscious and deliberate.

— ... the amount under-reported to the DOF grew consistently and dramatically — from $5.5 million as of June 30, 1996, to a high of $29.2 million on June 30, 2003.

— By the end of fiscal year 2002-03 at the latest, the first in a series of annual decisions not to correct the discrepancy (and thereby not to reveal the funds to the DOF) was deliberately made.

MOTIVATION

— Thereafter, from 2002 to 2012, numerous individuals failed to take appropriate action to ensure the monies were revealed to the DOF. The primary reason consistently given for not doing so was fear that the Department would see its already-reduced general funding cut further if the extra monies in the SPRF were revealed. The embarrassment expected to result from revealing the funds was another motivating factor.

— Throughout this period of intentional non-disclosure, some Parks employees consistently requested, without success, that their superiors address the issue.

— Because they were not reported to the DOF, the monies seem to have represented an essentially useless reserve that could not be spent by the Parks Department as there was no legislative appropriation to do so.

WHO KNEW?

— Conclusively identifying everyone who knew of the funds and gave orders that they not be reported to the DOF is difficult. Reports that former director Ruth Coleman knew of the funds are unreliable.

— The evidence indicates (former financial services manager Tom) Domich made the initial decision not to disclose the funds, and in subsequent years (former chief deputy Michael) Harris was the highest ranking manager who ordered their continued non-disclosure.

— The statements of former accounting chief Freda Luan-Dun and former chief deputy director Michael Harris show that the discrepancy was reported by (former budget officer Becky) Brown and Luan-Dun to their supervisor, Tom Domich. Domich refuses to acknowledge these facts and unpersuasively denies all knowledge of the disparity and his role in the deception. It thus may never be known whether Domich acted alone in making the initial decision not to report the funds, or whether he reported the issue up the chain of command ... Consequently, it also cannot be determined with certainty whether the matter was reported to Ruth Coleman, who became acting director in January 2002 and went on to serve as director until July 2012.

— Rob Boriskin, who served as assistant deputy director of administrative services from February 2005 to April 2006, recalled bringing the fund disparity to Coleman's attention. He said Coleman gave him this advice: "You need to be looking at the bigger overall pictures and not spending so much time doing spreadsheets.”

— Manuel Lopez, who left the department last year because of an unauthorized vacation buy-out program, served as budget director from 2005 to 2007 before being promoted to deputy director of administrative services from 2007 to 2011. He told investigators that Coleman was aware of the $20 million disparity in the parks fund because every year for five years the state controller's office would not give the parks department an accounting award for it. When asked if Coleman realized there was money that had not been disclosed, Lopez responded: "That was my feeling, my impression, yes.” Lopez went on to say that he and Coleman had even discussed the possibility of getting finance's approval for a "continuous appropriation spending authority,” which would allow the department to spend the $20 million without legislative approval. "So she knew that there was money available.”

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE FUND

— ... from 1993 to 2011, discrepancies in the DOF budget and SCO year-end balance reports have been highly erratic. ... In eight of the years, anywhere from $11.5 million to $33.5 million more has been reported to the SCO than to the DOF. But in four other years (2002, 2006, 2007, and 2010) the opposite has occurred, and anywhere from $20.5 million to $35.1 million more has been over-reported to the DOF ...

— No evidence has been adduced that suggests any OHV monies have been intentionally unreported to the DOF. Instead, witnesses consistently claim the disparities in OHV fund balance reports are due to: 1) differences in how the multi-million-dollar loans of OHV monies to the general fund, now totaling $160 million, are required to be reported; 2) reporting and timing issues relating to appropriations, encumbrances and crediting back of funds for proposed multi-million-dollar OHV land acquisitions that were never consummated; and 3) an unintended and subsequently corrected multi-million-dollar infusion of fuel excise tax dollars into the OHV fund.