Parking probe concludes

The Denver District Attorney's Office has concluded its investigation into allegations involving the Denver Office of Parking Management and former director John Oglesby. The investigation found that criminal charges are unwarranted.

The following letter to the Denver City Attorney outlines the scope of the investigation and its conclusion:

J. Wallace Wortham, Jr.

Denver City Attorney

1437 Bannock Street, Room 353

Denver, Colorado 80202

Dear Mr. Wortham:

Commencing approximately June 27, 2002, my office began participating in a joint investigation with the Denver City Auditor involving Denver’s Office of Parking Management and in particular, the activities of Mr. Oglesby, the former Director of Parking Management. In that regard, my Chief Investigator, Tom Haney, interviewed many witnesses and reviewed many documents. Furthermore, I have read and reviewed the report of the City Auditor, entitled Parking Management Review and Evaluation, September 2002 (the “Auditor’s Report”). Based upon my investigation, I find that criminal charges are unwarranted.

The Auditor’s Report identifies several areas of concern. Most of the problems identified by the Auditor’s Report involve breaches of City of Denver policies and procedures. There is also reference to violations of the principals of prudent operations for a government agency. For example, the Auditor’s Report expresses concerns regarding non-compliance with ordinance and contract provisions, expired parking contracts, lease of a parking lot by the City for daily parking for City and non-City employees for free, employment verification concerns, and management and administration deficiencies. Those concerns, as well as others addressed in the report, do not involve potential violations of the criminal statutes.

Therefore, my investigation focused on issues that arguably raised questions of criminal conduct. On the surface, allegations of outside employment, conflict of interest, and unauthorized leave raise issues of official misconduct, embezzlement of public property, and even theft. However, in the course of our investigation we learned that city officials involved in hiring and supervising Oglesby knew of the his outside employment and knew as well that he planned to continue working for those other employers while working for the City. The knowledge and the approval of Oglesby’s outside employment by those who hired and those who supervised him, whether expressed or implied, render criminal prosecution not only inappropriate but impossible. Whether the City officials

who knew and approved of the outside employment had the actual authority to do so is immaterial; Mr. Oglesby understood that his outside employment was approved and could have reasonably believed that his outside employment was authorized.

Regarding the allegation that Mr. Oglesby pressured employees to dismiss tickets, arguably an attempt to influence a public servant, my investigation reveals the following. This matter was addressed in a departmental administrative investigation. Although Mr. Oglesby was required to pay $155 by agreement, the investigation concluded that Mr. Oglesby, in good faith, believed that the tickets were subject to dismissal. Again, in light of all the facts involved in his receiving the tickets, Oglesby’s belief that the tickets should be dismissed was reasonable. Acting on that belief, Mr. Oglesby has the actual authority to request that the tickets be dismissed. In so stating, I make no comment on the propriety or the ethics of Oglesby's personal involvement in having his tickets dismissed when the tickets are issued to his private vehicle while on city business.

As a result of our investigation, no criminal charges will be filed against Mr. Oglesby. If you have any questions regarding this letter or my investigation, please feel free contact me.