The county continues to indemnify employees without adequate disclosure of the internal investigative process to the public. In this case, allegations of sexual assault are the topic of indemnification. The county has determined that its own employees were operating in the scope of their employment. If the results of the suit brought by Mr. Cruz result in a guilty verdict for these allegations, is the county really saying that the defendants were operating within the scope of their employment?
Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our judicial process, so why is a decision regarding indemnification made prior to litigation? Why is the public not allowed to better understand the internal investigative process regarding indemnification? Why is the county allowed to spend our tax dollars defending people when we have no idea whether the allegations against them are substantiated? Does the county ever review the indemnified cases for the outcome of the case?
The county continues to indemnify employees without adequate disclosure of the internal investigative process to the public. In this case, allegations of sexual assault are the topic of indemnification. The county has determined that its own employees were operating in the scope of their employment. If the results of the suit brought by Mr. Cruz result in a guilty verdict for these allegations, is the county really saying that the defendants were operating within the scope of their employment?
Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our judicial process, so why is a decision regarding indemnification made prior to litigation? Why is the public not allowed to better understand the internal investigative process regarding indemnification? Why is the county allowed to spend our tax dollars defending people when we have no idea whether the allegations against them are substantiated? Does the county ever review the indemnified cases for the outcome of the case?