the state vs crawford lewis, patricia pope, …...anthony vincent pope d0201091-06 ct. 1: violation...
TRANSCRIPT
State Witness –
Inv. W.C. Nix, DKDA
No. ________________________
DEKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
MAY TERM 2012
THE STATE
vs
CRAWFORD LEWIS,
PATRICIA POPE, AKA: PATRICIA REID
and
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE
D0201091-06
Ct. 1: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act –
Conducting and Participating in an Enterprise Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4-(b)
Ct. 2: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act –
Acquiring Property Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(a))
Ct. 3: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act –
Conspiracy to Participate in an Enterprise Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4 (c))
Ct. 4: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act –
Conspiracy to Acquire Property Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4 (c))
Ct 5: Theft By Taking By A Government Employee
(O.C.G.A. § 16-8-2)
Ct 6: Bribery
(O.C.G.A. § 16-10-2)
____________________________________ Bill.
______________________________ Foreperson.
2
The Defendant, Crawford Lewis, waives copy of the
Indictment, list of witnesses, full panel, formal
arraignment, and pleads
_____________________________.
This the _____ of _____________ 20____.
________________________________________
District Attorney
________________________________________
Defendant's Attorney
________________________________________
Defendant
The Defendant, Patrica Reid, waives copy of the
Indictment, list of witnesses, full panel, formal
arraignment, and pleads
_____________________________.
This the _____ of _____________ 20____.
________________________________________
District Attorney
________________________________________
Defendant's Attorney
________________________________________
Defendant
The Defendant, Anthony Vincent Pope, waives
copy of the Indictment, list of witnesses, full panel,
formal arraignment, and pleads
_____________________________.
This the _____ of _____________ 20____.
________________________________________
District Attorney
________________________________________
Defendant's Attorney
________________________________________
Defendant
3
STATE OF GEORGIA, COUNTY OF DEKALB
BILL OF INDICTMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY,
The Grand Jurors selected, chosen and sworn for the County of DeKalb to wit:
1. Scott A. G. Lord, Foreperson
2. Thomas F. Adams 15. Britany A. Hayes
3. Thomas W. Baker, Jr. 16. Wyeka Humphrey
4. Joseph Banks 17. Briana Knight
5. Kenneth B. Bonnet 18. Judith Laursen
6. Linda Lesley Brogan 19. Antoinette Y. Lawrence
7. Melanie C. Buch 20. Lee A. Leach
8. Samuel S. Choy 21. Geraldine L. Mitchell
9. Gregory L. Cribb 22. Tommie L. Nichols
10. Angelo L. Curci 23. Michael Perez
11. Bin Dai 24. Amanda B. Rogers
12. Sally Ezra 25. Frederick Strobel
13. Joshua A. Glasser 26. Melissa G. Volk
14. Kari A. Goodfellow
4
COUNT 1 7
PART I - THE NATURE OF THE CASE 8 PART II - DEFINITIONAL SECTION 10
A. Definitions 10 Addition: 10 Agenda Item: 10 Architect of Record: 10 Change Order (C/O): 10 Competitive Sealed Bidding: 11 Competitive Sealed Proposals: 11 Design/Bid/Build: 11 Design/Build: 12 Georgia Competitive Award Statutes: 12 Notice of Award: 12 Public Works Construction: 12 Request For Proposal (RFP): 13 Responsible Bidder or Responsible Offeror: 13 Responsive Bidder or Responsive Offeror: 13 Scope of Work: 13 Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST): 13 Stated Cost Limitation: 14
B. GA Department of Education Policies 14 DOE Regulation 160.5-4.10(1)(b): Code FED (1) 14 DOE Regulation 160-5-4.11(I)(b): Code FGAD 14
C. DeKalb County School System Policies and Regulations 15 DCSD Purchasing Policy: DJE 15 DCSD Policy: EGD 16 DCSD Facilities Projects Contracts Regulation: FGD-R 17
PART III - THE ENTERPRISE 18 PART IV - THE DEFENDANTS 19 PART V – THE SCHEME 21
A. Background 21 1. General 21 2. Employment of PAT POPE as CFO of A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 23 3. Employment of PAT POPE as COO of DCSD 24
B. Acts Involving Fraud 25 1. Background 25 2. Construction Projects 26
a. COLUMBIA HIGH SCHOOL Project 27 1. Background 27 2. Fraud via Change Order #2 signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 27 3. Fraud via Change Order #3 signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 30 4. Fraud via “Extension” in Change Order #7 signed by LEWIS and PAT POPE 31 5. Fraud via Deferred SPLOST II Contract Award signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS
and PAT POPE 33 6. Fraud via “Addendum #1” signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 35 7. Fraud via “Addendum #2” signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 37 8. Fraud via Errors and Omissions 37
b. MCNAIR CLUSTER ELEMENTARY Project 40 1. Background and Overview 40 2. Termination of the Architect 41 3. PAT POPE changes the Criteria 42 4. PAT POPE holds Improper BAFO Meeting 45 5. PAT POPE Manipulates Scoring of Offerors 46 6. Money to TONY POPE 47 7. Concealment of TONY POPE ’s participation in the McNair Project 47 8. TONY POPE’s Post-Award Efforts to Conceal His Participation 51
c. MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL CENTER (MIC) Project 52
5
1. Background 52 2. PAT POPE fires the Architect of Record 52 3. Advertising One Scope of Work 53 4. PAT POPE limits Scope of Work 55 5. PAT POPE’s misrepresentation to the Board of Education 55 6. Fraudulent Creation of “MIC II” 56 7. Misrepresentation to DCSD Counsel 57 8. Misrepresentation to DCSD Board 57
d. ARABIA MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL Project 59 1. Background 59 2. Forged tally sheets 59 3. Bribery of CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 60
3. OTHER ACTS of FRAUD 62 a. Benefit to PAT POPE – Commingling of funds 62 b. CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE solicit bribes 62 c. Illegal Car Purchases 64
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS 64 2. PAT POPE 65
d. Improper Use of DCSD Purchasing Card 66 1. Theft: CRAWFORD LEWIS pays for personal vacation 66 2. Theft: CRAWFORD LEWIS pays for unauthorized personal activities 66
C. LEWIS’ knowledge and facilitation of criminal activities 67 1. LEWIS’ knowledge of PAT POPE’s illegal actions 67 2. LEWIS’ knowledge and facilitation of PAT POPE’s illegal actions 68
D. LEWIS’ acts sabotaging and hindering the Criminal Investigation 71 1. CRAWFORD LEWIS appoints the target of the investigation, PAT POPE, to respond to
District Attorney’s subpoenas 71 2. CRAWFORD LEWIS gives False Statements 73 3. CRAWFORD LEWIS attempts to stop the District Attorney’s Office criminal investigation 74
PART VI - ACTS OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY 76 A. COLUMBIA HIGH SCHOOL 76
1. PAT POPE 76 a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2 76 b. Acts Involving Theft 77 c. False Statements, O.C.G.A. §16-10-20 79 d. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341 80 e. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 81
2. TONY POPE 82 a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2 82 b. Acts Involving Theft 83
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS 84 a. Thefts and Acts Involving Theft 84 b. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 85
B. MCNAIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 86 1. PAT POPE 86
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2 86 b. Acts Involving Theft 87 c. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341 88 d. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 89
2. TONY POPE 90 a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2 90 b. Acts Involving Theft 91 c. Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1343 92
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS 95 a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2 95
C. MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL CENTER 96 1. PAT POPE 96
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2 96 b. Acts Involving Theft 97 c. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 98
2. TONY POPE 99
6
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2 99 b. Acts Involving Theft 100
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS 101 a. Acts Involving Theft 101 b. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 102
D. ARABIA MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL 103 1. PAT POPE 103
a. Forgery – First Degree, O.C.G.A. §16-9-1 103 b. False Statements and Writings, O.C.G.A. §16-10-20 104 c. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2 105 d. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 106
2. CRAWFORD LEWIS 107 a. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2 107 b. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 108
E. OTHER CRIMINAL ACTS 109 1. CRAWFORD LEWIS 109
a. Acts Involving to Theft 109 b. False Statements, O.C.G.A. §16-10-20 110 c. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2 111 d. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 112 e. Influencing a Witness, O.C.G.A. §16-10-93 113 f. Influencing a Witness, O.C.G.A. §16-10-93 114 g. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. §16-10-94 115
2. PAT POPE 117 a. Acts Relating to Theft 117 b. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2 118 c. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 119 d. Influencing a Witness, O.C.G.A. §16-10-93 120 e. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. §16-10-94 122
3. TONY POPE 124 a. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. §16-10-94 124
COUNT 2 125
COUNT 3 126
COUNT 4 127
COUNT 5 128
COUNT 6 129
EXHIBIT LIST 130
7
COUNT 1
The GRAND JURORS aforesaid, in the name of and on behalf of the citizens of the State
of Georgia, charge and accuse
CRAWFORD LEWIS,
PATRICIA REID, a/k/a PAT POPE, and
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE a/k/a TONY POPE,
individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime, with the offense
of
VIOLATION OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT ~ CONDUCTING AND PARTICIPATING IN AN
ENTERPRISE THROUGH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY,
in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-14-4(b), for the said accused persons, in the County of
DeKalb and State of Georgia, between the 10th day of October, 2005, and the 5th day
of May, 2010, did unlawfully conduct and participate in the enterprise alleged below
through the pattern of racketeering activity, as more particularly described below,
contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
DEKALB SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT D. JAMES, District Attorney
8
Part I - The Nature Of The Case
The DeKalb County School District (hereinafter DCSD) operates public schools
in areas of DeKalb County that are not within the city limits of Atlanta or Decatur. DCSD
has approximately 100,000 students, 140 schools, 13,000 full-time employees and an
annual budget which exceeds $700 million dollars ($700,000,000.00).
CRAWFORD LEWIS was in charge of DCSD for over five years. During this
time, he abused his position for his own personal gain and the benefit of his friends, his
family, and his lover. Additionally, LEWIS used his public office for illegal private gain;
concealed waste, fraud, abuse and corruption to appropriate authorities. Rather than
operating in the best interests of DeKalb County's children, CRAWFORD LEWIS,
PAT POPE, and TONY POPE, stole or facilitated the theft of millions of dollars,
performed or approved payment for sub-standard work, blocked legitimate contractors
from receiving or completing contracts, and manipulated projects to meet their own
unlawful objectives.
CRAWFORD LEWIS and his Chief Operations Officer, PATRICIA REID,
a/k/a PAT POPE manipulated and inappropriately funneled contracts to Mrs. Pope’s
husband and to contractors from whom they received illegal benefits. In so doing, the
PAT POPE and TONY POPE went from near bankruptcy to substantial wealth in just a
few years. This illegal conduct, allowed CRAWFORD LEWIS to maintain a lifestyle
beyond what he could afford.
The defendants' racketeering activity primarily concentrated on the manipulation
of bidding, contracting and payment processes concerning the following DCSD
construction projects: Columbia High School, McNair Cluster Elementary School,
9
Mountain Industrial Center, and Arabia Mountain High School. This activity enabled
TONY POPE to obtain payments in connection with projects on which he was not
eligible to work due to conflicts of interest that, in part, flowed from his then-marriage to
and business relationship with DCSD's Chief Operations Officer PAT POPE. In order to
get millions of dollars to TONY POPE, and through him to PAT POPE, which neither
of them could lawfully receive, the defendants falsified documents, authorized illegal
payments, misrepresented material facts to the DeKalb County Board of Education
(hereinafter Board), concealed material facts from the Board, and manipulated various
aspects of the bidding, contracting and payment processes for these projects.
CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE also engaged in racketeering activity
that included obtaining payments for improper and fraudulent travel, lodging, and bribery
from architects and contractors.
Soon after the District Attorney commenced an investigation into the defendants'
misconduct, the defendants expanded the scope of their racketeering activity to include
tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and giving false statements to
investigators. Further, no later than 2008, with full knowledge of their criminal activities,
CRAWFORD LEWIS facilitated the ongoing criminal activities of PAT POPE and
TONY POPE with DCSD resources by
o attempting to use DCSD inside and outside counsel to shield PAT POPE’s illegal
actions;
o shortly thereafter, giving PAT POPE a pay raise;
o using DCSD monies to pay a personal legal bill for TONY POPE.
In order to avoid confusion and because terms related to construction law are used
throughout the indictment, a Definitions section is included below.
10
PART II - Definitional Section
A. Definitions
Addition:
The square footage of room floor space for instructional or other purposes added
to an existing educational facility, whether physically connected thereto or a
separate structure located on the same site.
Agenda Item:
The official document used to secure a presentation slot at a DCSD Board of
Education meeting and which provides pertinent information about the request to
be made to the Board.
Architect of Record:
The architect in charge of all aspects of architectural and engineering services and
who provides the seal and certification on all drawings, plans and payment
applications during the course of a project.
Change Order (C/O):
11
An alteration, addition, or deduction from the original scope of work identified in
contract documents that address changes wanted by an Owner and/or unforeseen
conditions necessary for project completion.
Competitive Sealed Bidding:
One of two methods for soliciting public works construction contracts whereby
the contract award is based upon the lowest responsive, responsible bid in
conformance with the provisions of subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. §36-91-21.
Competitive Sealed Proposals:
One of two methods for soliciting public works construction contracts whereby
the contract is awarded to the proposal that is determined to be the most
advantageous to the governmental entity based upon the evaluation of published
criteria in conformance with the provisions of subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. §36-91-
21.
Design/Bid/Build:
A construction delivery method where the Owner first contracts with an architect
and only after drawings/plans have reached a certain point of completion does the
Owner then enters into a separate contract with a construction contractor to build
the structure/perform the construction work. Although these are two separate
contracts, both the architect employed by the Owner and the construction
contractor employed by the Owner are required to work together during the
12
construction phase of the project to ensure proper construction and timely
completion of the project.
Design/Build:
A construction delivery method where the Owner has one contract with a
designer/architect and a construction contractor who have teamed up to design
and build the project simultaneously as a single entity. This construction delivery
method is considered a fast-tracking method for designing and building a
structure.
Georgia Competitive Award Statutes:
Statutes under Title 36, Chapters 10 and 91 of the Official Code of Georgia that
address the legal requirements for the funding, advertisement, selection of
contractors either through bids or proposals, and awarding of construction
contracts for public works construction projects costing $100,000.00 or more.
Notice of Award:
The official written notification from Owner to an architect and/or contractor that
he/she had either the most responsible, responsive bid OR the most advantageous
proposal and has won the contract award for a project.
Public Works Construction:
The building, altering, repairing, improving, or demolishing of any public
structure or building or other public improvements of any kind to any public real
13
property other than those projects covered by Chapter 4 of Title 32 of the Official
Code of Georgia. This term does not include the routine operation, repair,
maintenance of existing structures, buildings, or real property.
Request For Proposal (RFP):
A process in which construction companies or architectural firms will submit
information in order to obtain a contract with a government agency.
Responsible Bidder or Responsible Offeror:
A person or entity that has submitted a bid or proposal and that has the capability
in all respects to perform fully and reliably the contract requirements.
Responsive Bidder or Responsive Offeror:
A person or entity that has submitted a bid or proposal that conforms in all
material respects to the requirements set forth in the invitation for bids or request
for proposals.
Scope of Work:
The parameters of the work for a construction project that are required by the
contract documents.
Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST):
The collection of sales tax revenues for a specified period of time upon the
approval of a referendum by voters for which the money is used to fund the
14
construction and renovation of education facilities and/or to retire bond debt
incurred from expenses associated with the construction and renovation of
educational facilities.
Stated Cost Limitation:
The budgeted cost for the complete design and construction of a project.
B. GA Department of Education Policies
DOE Regulation 160.5-4.10(1)(b): Code FED (1)
“Local school systems shall obtain the services of architects and engineers who
hold current Georgia registration to design all school facility construction and or
modifications.”
DOE Regulation 160-5-4.11(I)(b): Code FGAD
“Local boards of education shall specify a flat fee in the contract(s) executed
for architectural services on state capital outlay construction projects. State
participation in architectural fees cannot exceed a total of six percent of the
eligible state cost limitation. The maximum amount eligible for state participation
for architectural design fees shall not exceed four percent of the stated cost
limitation for the project. The maximum amount eligible for state participation for
architectural oversight during the construction phase of the project shall not
exceed two percent of the state cost limitation for the project.” (emphasis added).
15
C. DeKalb County School System Policies and Regulations
DCSD Purchasing Policy: DJE
I (A). “Purchases for the DeKalb County School System shall be made on the
basis of quality, price, and service. With the exceptions provided in this policy,
acquisition of all goods and services shall be subject to the following limits except
when a clear emergency exists or a particular item may be obtained from only one
known source. Proper documentation shall be maintained regarding all such
exceptions.”
I(A)(1): $5,000 or less; made with effort to provide the least expense to
the Board
I(A)(2): Greater than $5,000, but $10,000 or less; two verbal quotations (if obtainable)
I(A)(3): Greater than $10,000, but $25,000 or less; two or more written
quotations (if obtainable)I(A)(4): Greater than $25,000; awarded only
after public advertisement for bid in, at least, two issues of the official
organ of the DeKalb County
I(B)(3): “purchases of services or goods from budgeted funds with a value
exceeding $50,000 shall be made by the Chief Financial Officer or designee(s)
upon the approval of the Board of Education.”
16
DCSD Policy: EGD
The DeKalb County Board of Education, under the authority of O.C.G.A. §20-2-
990 and as part of the terms of employment of Board members, superintendents,
principals, teachers, and other administrators and employees, may undertake to
defend civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal actions brought or maintained against
members of the Board, the superintendents, principals, teachers, and other
administrators and employees, where the Board determines that such actions have
arisen out of the lawful performance of duties for the DeKalb County Board of
Education, whether such actions are based on negligence, violation of contract
rights, or violation of civil, constitutional, common law, or other statutory rights,
whether state or federal, to the extent they are not protected by insurance not to
exceed $100,000 per person per occurrence. The Superintendent is authorized to
expend federal, state, and local funds budgeted for such purposes, including but
not limited to attorney’s fees, court costs, deposition costs, judgments, witness
fees and compensation, and all other like costs, expenses and fees. This policy
shall not apply (a) to any action brought by the Board against persons specified
above, nor by any person so specified against any other such person; or (b) to any
action based upon or attributable to any such person gaining in fact any personal
profit or advantage to which they were not legally entitled.
Provided further, that with respect to criminal or quasi-criminal actions, the Board
may reimburse such persons for expenditures of the type described above if final
judgment in such action is rendered in favor of such persons.
Nothing herein shall be construed as waiving immunity or privilege now or
hereafter enjoyed by any Board member, any superintendent, principal, teacher,
administrator or other employee, nor any public body, board, agency, or political
subdivision.
17
DCSD Facilities Projects Contracts Regulation: FGD-R
“The standard form of agreement between the owner and the contractor, engineer,
and/or architect, with the approval of the Board, is executed by the
Superintendent. Payment and Performance Bonds are required on all construction
projects.”
18
PART III - The Enterprise
DeKalb County School System is a governmental entity established and formed
under the laws of the State of Georgia. DCSD constitutes an “enterprise" as defined by
O.C.G.A. 16-14-3 (6) (hereinafter "the enterprise").
19
PART IV - The Defendants
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS, at times pertinent to this indictment, was an employee
of the enterprise. Specifically, CRAWFORD LEWIS was the Superintendent of DCSD
from 2005 to 2010, a role which was the highest ranking and highest paid position in the
DeKalb County School System with ultimate accountability for all matters within DCSD.
2. PAT POPE, at times pertinent to this indictment, was an employee of the
enterprise, DCSD. She served as its Chief Operations Officer (COO) and in that capacity
supervised the DCSD construction program; and the maintenance and repair of all
structures.
At times pertinent to this indictment, she held herself out to be married to TONY
POPE, was his business partner, and served as:
Chief Financial Officer (hereinafter CFO) and Secretary of A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. from April 2005 to October 2007 with a principal office address of
1901 Montreal Road Tucker, GA;
CFO and Secretary of VINCENT POPE ARCHITECTS, INC. a related Florida Corporation,
from August 17, 2006 until July 9, 2008 with a principal mailing address of 1901
Montreal Road Tucker, GA.
Registered Agent for Anthony Pope’s company P2 HOLDINGS, LLC which utilized
her home address as the registered office, from September 2005 to May 16, 2008;
Partner with ANTHONY POPE in MANAGING PARTNERS PM, LLC from September
12, 2006 to May 16, 2008;
Additionally, PAT POPE shared joint checking accounts with TONY POPE in
which she received and retained funds paid to A. VINCENT POPE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
by DCSD.
20
3. TONY POPE is an architect. He is also the President and Registered Agent for
A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC; MANAGING PARTNERS PM, LLC; and, VINCENT
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC. He held himself out to be married to PAT POPE and was her
business partner at times pertinent to this indictment.
21
PART V – The Scheme
A. Background
1. General
The mission of the DeKalb County School System is to educate the children of
DeKalb County. In order to accomplish this purpose, among other things, the school
system builds, operates and maintains buildings, as well as an automotive fleet. The
money to operate and maintain these assets comes from several sources including, but not
limited to: Special Purpose Local Option Sales Taxes (hereinafter SPLOST), DeKalb
County, the State of Georgia, and the Federal government. These revenue sources
aggregate to hundreds of millions of dollars.
As the most senior members of the administration of DCSD, CRAWFORD
LEWIS and PAT POPE were fiduciaries of this public money. Codes and statutes exist
at the county, state, and federal levels governing how the money given to DCSD is to be
spent and how it is not to be spent. These laws help ensure that the public is getting the
best value for its tax money and prevent fraud, waste, and misuse.
At the federal level, for example, 18 U.S.C § 666 prohibits, in pertinent part,
employees and managers of a political subdivision that receives, in any one year period,
benefits in excess of $10,000 of federal funds from embezzling, stealing, obtaining by
fraud, or converting to their own use property that is valued at Five Thousand dollars
($5,000.00) or more. Since DCSD receives in excess of Ten Thousand dollars
($10,000.00) of federal funds each year, its managers and employees are prohibited from
engaging in those illegal activities. That law prohibits fraud of any sort which exceeds
22
Five Thousand dollars ($5,000.00), regardless of whether that fraud is directly linked to
the federal funds received.
18 U.S.C § 666 further prohibits these same personnel from “agreeing to corruptly
solicit or accept anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or
rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such
organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more….”
As such, the role of fiduciary is expanded to govern, not just the handling of money, but
also the solicitation and receipt of gifts.
At the State level, examples of statutes that prevent the misuse of public funds are
the Competitive Award Statutes, O.C.G.A. § 36-91-1 et seq. One purpose of competitive
award statutes is to ensure all contractors an equal opportunity to bid for, or make an
offer on, school projects so that friends, family members of governmental agents, and
others do not have an unfair advantage in the process. O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(f)
specifically prohibits any member of a governmental entity who issues a public works
construction contract, from receiving, either directly or indirectly, any part of the pay or
profit arising out of any such contract.
At the county level, DCSD Board Policy GAJ known as the gift policy provides
restrictions on what gifts employees can accept. (See Exhibit A).1 Additionally, DCSD
Board Policy DJE, known as the Purchasing Policy provides restrictions and oversight on
purchases of goods and services made on behalf of the school district. For example,
pursuant to DCSD Board Policy DJE, the authority to obligate DCSD funds to an agency
outside of DCSD, at the time relevant to this indictment, was vested in the Superintendent
or his designees. Likewise, similar to the State Competitive Award Statutes and at times
23
pertinent to this indictment, DCSD Board Policy DJE contained a Competitive
Procurement Process. This particular Board policy required all purchases and contracts
for goods and services exceeding $25,000 be awarded only after public advertisement.2
This public advertisement allowed several companies the equal opportunity to bid and
win the contract under consideration. In addition to the statutes and rules previously
mentioned, numerous other statutes exist such as statutes involving Racketeering; Theft;
Bribery; Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; and False Statements which prohibit the fraud and
misappropriation of public funds by public servants.
2. Employment of PAT POPE as CFO of A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Prior to her employment with DCSD, PAT POPE worked for TONY POPE’s
company, “A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.,” as the Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of the corporation. On April 15, 2005, and during PAT POPE’S employment
with her husband’s company, DCSD awarded TONY POPE an architectural contract for
Columbia High School, (hereinafter Columbia Project)(See Exhibit B), to design the
career technology and auditorium additions (hereinafter Additions3) and to replace the
HVAC system, ceiling tiles, and light fixtures (hereinafter HVAC and replacements) as
well. This contract, as required by the Georgia Department of Education Regulation 160-
5-4.11(I)(b), was a fixed-priced architectural contract in the amount of Three Hundred
Twenty-Six Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-Four dollars ($326,364.00). A fixed-price
1 All Exhibits are attached and incorporated herein by reference.
2 Board Policy DJE was changed in 2010.
3 Additions refers to the square footage of room floor space for instructional or other purposes added to an
existing educational facility, whether physically connected thereto or a separate structure located on the
same site.
24
architectural contract is a contract where both parties agree upon a certain price and no
deviation from that price is permitted absent some verifiable proof of change in the scope
of services to be provided by the architect.
In the construction industry changes to the initial contract are sometimes made.
When that happens, a document called a “Change Order” is executed between the party
contracting for the service and the party providing the service. A Change Order is an
alteration, addition, or deduction from the original scope of work as defined in the
contract documents to address changes or unforeseen conditions necessary for the
completion of the projects to DCSD. Documentation is required to support the validity of
the Change Order, specifically the documentation must justify the additional architectural
services required of TONY POPE. Prior to her employment with DCSD, PAT POPE
negotiated a valid Change Order (hereinafter Change Order #1) for the Columbia High
School Project in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirteen dollars
($15,513.00) on behalf of A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. The negotiations for this
valid Change Order #1 demonstrate the degree of detail required by DCSD. (See Exhibits
C1 – C2). Significantly, PAT POPE provided these documents to DCSD on behalf of her
husband’s company. This particular negotiation demonstrates PAT POPE’s familiarity
with the terms of the contract TONY POPE held with DCSD. Additionally, it
demonstrates her familiarity with the necessity of providing supporting documentation
and rationale necessary to verify a Change Order’s validity.
3. Employment of PAT POPE as COO of DCSD
25
Because TONY POPE already held a contract with DCSD, PAT POPE and
TONY POPE met with CRAWFORD LEWIS and DCSD Attorney Stan Hawkins prior
to her employment as COO for DCSD. At that time, all parties agreed that due to the
conflict of interest, and in order to comply with the Competitive Award Statutes, TONY
POPE could complete his current Columbia contract but he would no longer be allowed
to work on any future DCSD construction projects in any capacity. In other words,
TONY POPE could finish what he was specifically contracted to perform for the
previously agreed upon pay and no more, but he could not perform any additional work
on the Columbia Project or provide any services on any other project within DCSD. With
these restrictions, PAT POPE accepted the job of COO of DCSD in October, 2005.
B. Acts Involving Fraud
1. Background
Within months of her initial employment and in her capacity as COO of DCSD,
PAT POPE circumvented the State of Georgia Competitive Award Statutes (specifically,
O.C.G.A §36-91-20; §36-91-21; §36-91-22), engaged in acts of theft and fraud, and used
DCSD resources in order to fraudulently obtain money from DCSD through TONY
POPE’s involvement in construction contract awards for the Columbia Project.
PAT POPE, contrary to the conditions of her employment and in violation of the
law, used these same methods to expand TONY POPE’S involvement on the Columbia
Project and to ensure his involvement on other DCSD projects, including McNair Cluster
Elementary School Project (hereinafter McNair Project) and Mountain Industrial Center
26
Project (hereinafter MIC Project). Additionally, she engaged in fraudulent activities after
awarding the Arabia Mountain High School Project (hereinafter Arabia Project).
In regard to the Columbia, McNair, and MIC Projects, CRAWFORD LEWIS
also circumvented the State of Georgia Competitive Award Statutes and Board Policy in
violation of the law by engaging in acts of theft and fraud by approving contracts, Change
Orders, and Addenda that benefited A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; by failing to
disclose to the Board of Education the fraudulent activities of PAT POPE; and, by not
only failing to stop her illegal activities but by facilitating them.
2. Construction Projects
Periodically, DCSD will award a contract for an overall construction project to a
particular contractor, paying it a lump sum and allowing it to choose an outside architect
or to use an in-house architect. This type of construction delivery method is known as a
“Design-Build” Project. In this construction delivery method, there is only one contract
with DCSD which is between DCSD and the contractor. At other times, DCSD will
individually and directly contract with an architect and a contractor to accomplish the
project. This kind of construction delivery method is known as a “Design-Bid-Build”
Project. In this construction delivery method, DCSD enters into two contracts – one with
an Architect and the other with a construction contractor.
PAT POPE and TONY POPE profited illegally from both of the above
methods.4 CRAWFORD LEWIS signed each contract, change order, and addenda
4 In the Design-Bid-Build contract, DCSS would contract separately with A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES,
INC. Then, PAT POPE would manipulate TONY POPE’s original contract expanding it beyond his
original scope of work in order for both of them to receive funds fraudulently. Under the Design-Build
method, PAT POPE would change the delivery method to Design-Build method to hide TONY POPE’s
27
benefiting TONY POPE. These actions provided the authority for DCSD to issue the
check directly to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. or companies employing A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
a. COLUMBIA HIGH SCHOOL Project
1. Background
When TONY POPE entered into his architectural agreement with DCSD in April
of 2005, the Columbia High School Project encompassed the design and construction of
the career technology and auditorium additions and the replacement of the HVAC
system, ceiling tiles, and light fixtures throughout the school.
DCSD used the Design-Bid-Build method for this project and first awarded an
architectural contract for the Columbia Project. As allowed by that delivery method,
DCSD then entered into two separate contracts – one with A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. a construction contract with MERIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
2. Fraud via Change Order #2 signed by CRAWFORD
LEWIS and PAT POPE
As previously noted, a Change Order is an alteration, addition, or deduction from
the original scope of work, as defined in the contract documents, to address changes or
unforeseen conditions necessary for the completion of the project. Supporting
documentation must accompany a Change Order justifying the additional work to be
involvement in that particular project, since DCSS would not have a contract with the architect. Under the
Design-Build method the contractor chooses and pays the architect.
28
done by the architect before it can be approved. PAT POPE knew this. In July of 2005,
prior to her employment with DCSD, PAT POPE negotiated a Change Order to the
Columbia architectural contract on behalf of with A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
and submitted documents to DCSD in order to validate the increase in fees called for by
Change Order #1.
On March 9, 2006, just over five months after PAT POPE was hired as COO of
DCSD, TONY POPE submitted a letter to DCSD officially requesting an increase in his
fixed architectural fees (See Exhibit D). He also copied PAT POPE on that letter. The
next day, PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS each signed off on a Change Order #2
to increase A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.’s contract by the amount of One
Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety dollars ($176,690.00) (See Exhibit
E) (hereinafter Change Order #2). TONY POPE did not submit any documentation to
support the validity of this Change Order or the additional money to be paid to A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. under Change Order #2. The only justification given
by TONY POPE for the Change Order was his false representation that the increase in
the stated cost limitation5 of the overall Project justified an automatic increase in his
architectural fees.6 Not only was there no provision in TONY POPE’s contract allowing
for such an increase but it also violated Board policy, which required that all architectural
contracts be fixed fee contracts unless justified by additional services requirements
necessary to complete the contract. TONY POPE’s Change Order #2 did not offer any
new services in exchange for his increase in fee.
5 A stated cost limitation is a budget cap on the cost of the construction project.
6 As noted, increases in architectural fees based on increases to the stated cost limitation are allowed in
contracts which have been negotiated as such. TONY POPE’s contract did not contain this provision.
29
Pursuant to DCSD Purchasing Policy DJE, “purchases of services or non-
consumable products from budgeted funds with a value exceeding $50,000 shall be made
by the Chief Financial Officer or designee(s) upon the approval of the Board of
Education” (Exhibit A, see section (I)(A)(3)). PAT POPE did not submit Change Order
#2, (Exhibit E), to the Board of Education for approval as required. Instead, PAT POPE
and CRAWFORD LEWIS, authorized the Change Order, circumventing Board Policy.
Change Order #2 fraudulently benefited TONY POPE, and indirectly benefited PAT
POPE, in the amount of One Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety
dollars ($176,690.00). Not only was no new work performed pursuant to Change Order
#2, but this payment was for services already included in A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.’s original contract and covered in his initial architectural fee.
CRAWFORD LEWIS subsequently signed Change Order #2, listing A. VINCENT POPE
& ASSOCIATES, INC. as the recipient, thereby authorizing each check issued to A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
The firm RUBINO AND MCGEEHIN completed an internal audit report of DCSD
SPLOST II programs at the request of DCSD two months later on June 1, 2006, and
recommended that architects not be paid additional funds when they do no additional
work. CRAWFORD LEWIS incorporated this recommendation but failed to follow it in
future dealings with TONY POPE and A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Pursuant
to a construction program audit report, CRAWFORD LEWIS issued a memorandum
August 7, 2006 to the Board stating “architect and engineer fees will no longer be based
solely on a percentage of the stated cost limitation or cost of construction.” Additionally
the memorandum stated, “there will be no contract increases granted based on cost
30
growth.” CRAWFORD LEWIS did not follow his own memorandum with regards to
TONY POPE’s Columbia Project contract.
3. Fraud via Change Order #3 signed by CRAWFORD
LEWIS and PAT POPE
On July 27, 2006, TONY POPE submitted a letter to DCSD, with a copy to PAT
POPE requesting an increase to his architectural fees (See Exhibit F). Contrary to
CRAWFORD LEWIS’ memorandum to the Board, CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT
POPE issued another Change Order (hereinafter Change Order #3) for A. VINCENT POPE
& ASSOCIATES, INC. unsupported by documentation, in the amount of Two Hundred Sixty
Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Six dollars and fifty–four cents ($268,766.54).
(See Exhibit G). As with Change Order #2, TONY POPE did not claim any additional
services were needed to complete the project and did not submit any documents to
support the validity of Change Order #3. As before, TONY POPE claimed that the
increase to his fee was appropriate because of an increase in the stated cost limitation of
the (related) HVAC construction project awarded to MERIT. However, the contract signed
between DCSD and A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. already included designing
the HVAC and Replacement Project for a fixed fee, as referenced earlier in this section.
As with Change Order #2, TONY POPE performed no additional work for the
Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Six dollars and Fifty-Four
cents ($268,766.54) he was paid pursuant to Change Order #3. Collectively, Change
Orders #2 and #3 more than doubled A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.’s original fee
for the Columbia High School Project, despite no additional work being performed by
31
him in exchange for these additional fees. CRAWFORD LEWIS subsequently signed
Change Order #3, listing A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as the recipient, thereby
authorizing each check issued to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4. Fraud via “Extension” in Change Order #7 signed by LEWIS
and PAT POPE
TONY POPE, on April 24, 2007, issued a memorandum to DCSD proposing an
“extension” to MERIT’S HVAC and Replacements Contract (See Exhibit H). In response
to TONY POPE’s proposal, PAT POPE submitted an Agenda Item7 to the Board of
Education on June 4, 2007, requesting authority to extend Merit’s HVAC construction
contract in the amount of One Million Six Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred
Seventy-Six dollars ($1,635,976.00) which was approved June 11, 2007 (See Exhibit I).
In actuality, this proposal was not an “extension” of any work previously contracted for
by DCSD. Instead, the proposal was an entirely new project that was unrelated to
MERIT’s existing contract for building the HVAC and Replacements Project. The scope
of work for HVAC and Replacement projects primarily occurs in the area between the
ceiling and the roofing i.e., from the ceiling and up. In contrast, TONY POPE’s
“extension” proposal consisted of a scope of work involving the area between the ceiling
and the foundation of the building, i.e., from the ceiling down. This represented an
7 As noted in the Definitions sections, an Agenda Item is an official document used to secure a presentation
slot at a Board of Education meeting and which provides pertinent information about the request to be
made to the Board.
32
entirely new scope of work MERIT was not legally entitled to be awarded without going
through proper competitive process.8
The Competitive Award Statutes mandate that any renovation required under
TONY POPE’s proposed extension was subject to certain requirements, due to its
estimated value and scope.9 PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS circumvented these
laws by approving Change Order #7 to “extend” MERIT’S HVAC contract without
advertising it as a new project and awarding the work through a new contract.
PAT POPE facilitated this fraud by creating an Agenda Item and presented
TONY POPE’s “proposal” to the Board for approval, misrepresenting it as an increase to
MERIT’s original HVAC contract to cover the next “phase of work”. (See Exhibit I). In
actuality, this “extension” was a new project. This misrepresentation encompassed a
multiplicity of frauds that including, but not limited to:
concealing TONY POPE’s involvement or participation in the proposal from the
Board;
concealing the benefit TONY POPE would receive from this fraudulent
extension to MERIT’s HVAC contract;
falsely describing this extension as a new “phase of work” that could be added to
MERIT’s contract when what was actually being approved by the Board through
this Agenda Item was an entirely new, wholly unrelated scope of work in
violation of the competitive award process;
8 Since the “extension” was a new scope of work and unrelated to MERIT’S original scope of work, the
Competitive Award statutes direct that the new work be publicly advertised. 9 Among those statutes, O.C.G.A. 36-91-20(e) forbids utilizing change orders for work unrelated to a
project’s original scope of work, and O.C.G.A. 36-91-22 mandates that any construction project valued at
One Hundred Thousand dollars $100,000.00 or more must be advertised and awarded in compliance with
Competitive Award Statutes.
33
falsely representing to the Board through this Agenda Item that the work was part
of MERIT’s original HVAC and Replacements Contract.
Based upon PAT POPE’s misrepresentations and presentation, the Board
approved the Agenda Item.
The following day on June 12, 2007, PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS
issued an extension to the existing HVAC and Replacements Contract with MERIT in the
form of Change Order #7 and labeled it as being related DCSD project number 421-104
(See Exhibit J). This is a change order for the HVAC project which does not include a
proper HVAC project number. The project number 421-104, on Change Order #7, as
explained below, was an important step in PAT POPE’s effort to effectuate future fraud
in regards to the Deferred SPLOST II scope of work.10
5. Fraud via Deferred SPLOST II Contract Award signed
by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
Having already awarded a portion of the Deferred SPLOST II work to MERIT, as
described above, PAT POPE argued just two months later, in August 2007, to award the
rest of the Deferred SPLOST II work contract to MERIT without utilizing the Competitive
Award Process. In the Agenda Item, she used the rationale that “since they already are
working on this project, it just makes sense to award them the rest of the work” (See
Exhibit K). Specifically, after illegally awarding MERIT the One Million Six Hundred
Thirty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Six dollars ($1,635,976.00) included in
10
Deferred SPLOST II Work: a project at Columbia High School included in the SPLOST II referendum
which consisted of classroom and exterior renovations which, due to lack of funding or lack of time, were
not awarded and completed during the approved SPLOST II period.
34
Change Order #7 (actually allocated for the new deferred work) PAT POPE argued to
the Board that MERIT should be awarded the Deferred SPLOST II work because it had
already begun that work. During her presentation to the Board, PAT POPE concealed
the fact that this contract award was not in compliance with the law. This was deceptive
for two reasons: (1) as previously noted, Change Order # 7 falsely and fraudulently
expanded the HVAC contract into a new project with a new scope of work – Deferred
SPLOST II work; and (2) because it was now new work and should have been bid
through the Competitive Award Process.
DCSD, not realizing PAT POPE’s deception, agreed and erroneously awarded
MERIT the Deferred SPLOST II project. This project was for the remaining Eight Million
One Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Seven dollars
($8,179,867.00) allocated for the project.11
On August 14, 2007, PAT POPE sent the
Notice of Award to MERIT (See Exhibit L1). CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
signed the contract September 13, 2007, with MERIT which lists VINCENT POPE AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. on page one of the contract. (See Exhibit L2). TONY POPE received
Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand dollars ($625,0000.00) from MERIT (referenced
below).
On May 16, 2008, the Georgia Department of Education notified PAT POPE and
CRAWFORD LEWIS that due to DCSD’ failure to advertise the new scope of work, in
violation of the Competitive Award Process by giving this contract to MERIT, the State
of Georgia would not approve the construction documents, (See Exhibit M1), which, in
turn, which prevented DCSD from receiving reimbursement of funds due to it in the
35
amount of One Million dollars ($1,000,000.00) (See Exhibit M2). PAT POPE responded
by writing a letter to the Georgia Department of Education falsely representing that the
DCSD construction counsel had approved her decision not to advertise the new scope of
work or place the project out for bid or RFP (See Exhibit N). In fact, DCSD construction
counsel never gave this purported advice.
6. Fraud via “Addendum #1” signed by CRAWFORD
LEWIS and PAT POPE
Knowing that he was not eligible to perform any new architectural services for
DCSD as a condition of PAT POPE’s employment with DCSD, and one month prior to
his proposal to extend MERIT’s contract (referenced above), PAT POPE solicited TONY
POPE on March 20, 2007 to provide a proposal for the architectural work related to the
Deferred SPLOST II work (See Exhibit O1).TONY POPE responded on May 1, 2007
stating his fee of Six Hundred Twenty Five Thousand dollars ($625,000.00)(See Exhibit
O2).
Although required to do so by Board Policy, PAT POPE failed to solicit other
architects to also provide proposals. In absence any competing proposals, PAT POPE
then issued an “Addendum” (hereinafter Addendum #1) on May 1, 2007 to A. VINCENT
POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for an architectural services contract to include all architectural
services necessary for a new scope of work which she entitled Deferred SPLOST II Work
(See Exhibit P). “Addendum #1” lists the specific aspects of this new scope of work, to
include:
11
The stated cost limitation for the Deferred SPLOST II project totaled Ten Million One Hundred Thirty-
Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Six dollars ($10,135,976.00).
36
complete building renovation;
elevator installation;
locker replacement;
roof replacement;
exterior renovations; and,
remodeling.
These items were not in the contract that A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
held prior to PAT POPE’s employment with the school system. As previously alleged,
TONY POPE was not eligible to bid or to be awarded this project in due to a conflict of
interest which could provide an unfair benefit. The “Addendum #1” added to TONY
POPE’S architectural fees and fraudulently benefited TONY POPE by an additional Six
Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand dollars ($625,000.00). CRAWFORD LEWIS,
circumventing necessary Board approval via Board Policies DJE and FGD-R, approved
the “Addendum #1” listing A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as the recipient,
thereby authorizing each check issued to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. (Exhibit
P).
The “Cost Breakdown” section of Addendum #1 to TONY POPE’S contract
indicates that 5% of his Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand dollars ($625,000.00)
contract award amount, or Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Five dollars
($30,625.00), was for his services related to “General Contractor Bidding and
Negotiation.” As previously discussed, PAT POPE did not advertise the new
construction contract required for the Deferred SPLOST II work in violation of the law.
Since no advertising, bidding, or negotiations took place, A. VINCENT POPE &
37
ASSOCIATES, INC. could not have performed these bidding and negotiation services
because no bids were received and no negotiations ever took place. PAT POPE made no
effort to recover the Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Five dollars ($30,625.00)
DCSD paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for work which she knew it did not
perform and would never perform.
7. Fraud via “Addendum #2” signed by CRAWFORD
LEWIS and PAT POPE
On December 13, 2007, PAT POPE issued “Addendum #2” to TONY POPE’s
contract for architectural services in the amount of Fifty-Two Thousand dollars ($52,000)
(See Exhibit Q). “Addendum #2” expanded TONY POPE’s original scope of work to
provide drawing layouts and coordination for furniture, fixtures, and equipment
(hereinafter FF&E) for the Deferred SPLOST II work. As previously noted, Board Policy
requires purchases over Fifty Thousand dollars ($50,000) to get Board approval. PAT
POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS did not submit Addendum #2 to the Board as required
by Board Policy DJE and subsequently approved Addendum #2 (which listed A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as the recipient) themselves, thereby authorizing each
check issued to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
8. Fraud via Errors and Omissions
Architectural documents set out in detail the requirements for a construction
project and an architect can be held financially responsible for any design mistakes made.
The architect must exercise ordinary skill, reasonable care, and due diligence to prevent
38
design mistakes. Finally, if an architect has made a mistake or been negligent in the
accuracy of his or her designs, the architect is liable to the owner for additional
construction costs caused by the architect’s errors or omissions.
MERIT submitted numerous Change Order Requests to PAT POPE seeking
additional payments that became necessary due to the defective or incomplete
architectural design work done by TONY POPE. For example, in the Additions
Contract, several Change Orders were made and approved by PAT POPE and
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and several more Change Orders were approved by them on the
HVAC and replacements contract. Some of those Change Orders approved issuing more
money to MERIT to cover the cost of extra work that resulted from “Errors and
Omissions” in the work submitted by TONY POPE and his company. Although DCSD,
as the Owner, was entitled to recover these costs from the architectural company that was
at fault (i.e. A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.), CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT
POPE did not hold A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. financially responsible for its
Errors and Omissions. CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE failed to collect
reimbursement in the amount of One Hundred Eighty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred and
Fifty ($185,850.00) for the Errors and Omissions in this project, from A. VINCENT POPE
& ASSOCIATES, INC. to which DCSD was entitled.
Encompassing the all Change Orders and Errors and Omissions, in the Columbia
Project alone, TONY POPE received One Million Four Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand
Three Hundred Thirty-Three dollars and Fifty-Four cents ($1,464,333.54) for “design”
work. Three Hundred Forty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Seven dollars
($341,877.00) of this amount stemmed from his original contract and the valid Change
39
Order #1. PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS approved the remaining One Million
One Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Six dollars and Fifty-Four
cents ($1,122,456.54) in fraudulent fees.
40
b. MCNAIR CLUSTER ELEMENTARY Project
1. Background and Overview
Charles David Moody (hereinafter C.D. Moody), at times pertinent to this
indictment, was a close family friend of TONY POPE and PAT POPE. Mr. Moody
owns C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (hereinafter CDM) and actively bids on
various DCSD projects. TONY POPE, as part of the CDM Design-Build team, did the
majority of the design work on the CDM response for the McNair Project.
DCSD, prior to PAT POPE’s employment, initially decided to use the Design-
Bid-Build12
construction delivery approach for the McNair Project. DCSD contracted
with an architectural firm, Brown Design Group (hereinafter BDG) to design the new
McNair Elementary School. Within two months of her employment by DCSD, PAT
POPE initiated the termination of BDG’s contract and altered the delivery method from
Design-Bid-Build to Design-Build.13
Once PAT POPE changed the project’s delivery method, she advertised a
“Request For Proposal”14
(hereinafter RFP) to potential offerors. Normally, when
responses to RFPs are returned, evaluators judge the responses using established criteria
12
As previously noted, Design-Bid-Build is a construction delivery method where the Owner (DCSS) first
contracts with an architect and only after drawings/plans have reached a certain point of completion does
the Owner then enter into a separate contract with a construction contractor to build the structure/perform
the construction work. Although these are two separate contracts, both the architect employed by the
Owner and the construction contractor employed by the Owner are required to work together during the
construction phase of the project to ensure proper construction and timely completion of the project.
13
As previously noted, Design/Build is a construction delivery method where the Owner has one contract
with a designer/architect and a construction contractor who have teamed up to design and build the project
simultaneously as a single entity. This construction delivery method is considered a fast-tracking method
for designing and building a structure.
14
Request For Proposal is a process in which construction companies or architectural firms would submit
information in order to obtain the job.
41
which have been assigned different levels of importance and which are set forth in the
RFP issued by the Owner (DCSD). During the RFP phase for the McNair Project, but
prior to the due date for responses to the RFP, PAT POPE changed the established
criteria, giving greater weight to the “Approach” criterion of the project, which is
essentially the architect’s concept of the project.15
During this same time PAT POPE provided inside information to TONY POPE.
Specifically, PAT POPE informed TONY POPE that a DCSD Board member wanted a
new building, the location and need for bathrooms in certain areas of the building, and
provided early access to floor plans for the existing building on the project site. PAT
POPE did not share that information equally with the other offerors giving TONY
POPE an improper advantage. TONY POPE used this inside information to create two
design options for CDM’s “Approach” for the project. CDM then won the bid.
PAT POPE took the multiple illegal steps enumerated below, to ensure that
CDM , whom she knew was employing TONY POPE, won The McNair Project and was
awarded the Eleven Million Nine Hundred Thousand dollar ($11,900,000.00) contract.
(See Exhibit R).
2. Termination of the Architect
The McNair Project originally began as a Design-Bid-Build project.16
DCSD
initially contracted with BDG to perform the architectural and engineering services for
the McNair project. On December 14, 2005, DCSD issued a “stop work” to BDG. (See
Exhibit S). One month later on January 17, 2006, CRAWFORD LEWIS wrote to Audra
15
The “Approach” criterion is essentially the architect’s concept of the project.
42
Brown-Cooper of BDG and informed her that DCSD terminated the Architectural and
Engineering Services Contract with BDG (See Exhibit T). DCSD paid BDG One
Hundred Five Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-Two dollars ($105,532.00) for the
work they had already completed which represented approximately 60% of the
preliminary design. (See Exhibit U).
On February 3, 2006, PAT POPE then changed the McNair project to a Design-
Build project and advertised a RFP (See Exhibit V) for the project as a Design-Build
project. This meant DCSD entered into a contract with only the construction company
and the construction company, in turn, contracted separately with an architect to design
the project. By making this change, PAT POPE was able to conceal the involvement of
A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as the architect teamed with CDM to provide
architectural services on the project.
3. PAT POPE changes the Criteria
PAT POPE changed evaluation criterion in order to benefit the company that
would hire A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Specifically, offers made in response to
an RFP are evaluated by established criteria weighted by DCSD. The weight of each
criterion is disclosed to potential offerors in the RFP documents describing the project.
This open disclosure allows each offeror to compete fairly with one another since each
one has the same information.
There are differences between the Bidding process and the RFP process. In the
Bidding process, DCSD cannot negotiate for a lower price with bidders unless all bidders
16
As noted previously, Design-Bid-Build means an architect was hired separately by the DCSS, and the
construction part was bid out separately at a later date.
43
submit bids exceeding the Owner’s allocated budget for the project. On the other hand, in
the RFP process, when offers are submitted in response to a RFP, DCSD can interview or
negotiate with all offerors determined to be “reasonably susceptible of being selected for
award.”17
A restriction on the ability to interview and negotiate is that if DCSD
interviews or has individual contact with any potential offeror then it must afford the
same opportunity to the other similarly situated offerors.
Offers made in response to the advertisement for the McNair project were initially
due March 23, 2006. The initial evaluation criteria included in the RFP were rated as
follows: firm overviews (20%); approach (10%); experience (10%); past performance
(20%); financial information (10%); acceptance of owner’s contract for fixed price
design and construction services (10%); and fixed price for design and construction
proposal (20%). (Exhibit V, see page 8 section 10 ). On March 8, 2006 PAT POPE
issued Addendum #3 to the RFP, changing the weight given to each evaluation criteria.
(See Exhibit W). The criteria were then changed as follows: firm overviews (15%);
approach (35%); experience (10%); past performance (10%); financial information (5%);
acceptance of owner’s contract for fixed price design and construction services (5%); and
fixed price design and construction proposal (20%).
17
O.C.G.A. §36-91-21(c)(2)
44
Criteria % Value Assigned
for 3/23
% Value Assigned
for 3/29
Firm overviews 20 15
Approach 10 35
Experience 10 10
Past Performance 20 10
Financial Information 10 5
Fixed Price Design
Services
10 5
Construction Proposal 20 20
Except for one criterion, all the weight values either stayed the same or changed,
either up or down, by five (5%) to ten percent (10%). The Approach criterion, however,
was that increased twenty-five percent (25%) points, so that it amounted to over one third
of the basis for the contract award. The Approach criterion is the architect’s concept of
the entire project design.
45
4. PAT POPE holds Improper BAFO Meeting
After conducting interviews with all the offerors, the DCSD requested all offerors
to submit their Best and Final Offers (hereinafter BAFO) on the McNair Project via fax
to the DCSD office (See Exhibit X1-X5). The BAFO request was sent to:
NIX FOWLER CONSTRUCTION;
WINTER CONSTRUCTION;
TURNER CONSTRUCTION;
BARTON MALOW CONSTRUCTION; and,
C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(b) provides, in pertinent part:
Any competitive sealed bidding process shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) The governmental entity shall publicly advertise an invitation for
bids;
(2) Bidders shall submit sealed bids based on the criteria set forth in
such invitation;
(3) The governmental entity shall open the bids publicly and evaluate
such bids without discussions with the bidders; and
…
(emphasis added)
The only construction company PAT POPE met with during the five day
period between the issuance of the BAFO request and the BAFO due date was CDM. In
this one-on-one meeting, PAT POPE discussed specific items to be cut from CDM’s
offer and intimated to Mr. Fragala, an estimator with CDM, the price he should submit in
his BAFO in order for CDM to win the project.
46
CDM’s initial offer was for Twelve Million Four Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand
dollars ($12,484,000). (See Exhibit Y). This was Four Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand
dollars ($486,000) more than the next lowest price offered by NIX FOWLER. As a result
of the meeting, CDM submitted a BAFO that was Five Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand
dollars ($584,000.00) less than its initial offer, thereby totaling Eleven Million Nine
Hundred Thousand dollars ($11,900,000.00). (See Exhibit Z).
Company Initial Offer Final Offer Difference
NIX FOWLER
$11,998,000 $11,948,000 $50,000
WINTER
$13,382,000 $13,157,000 $225,000
TURNER
$15,460,000 $15,400,000 $60,000
BARTON MALOW
$15,899,916 $15,599,324 $300,592
CDM $12,484,000 $11,900,000 $584,000
NIX FOWLER CONSTRUCTION dropped $50,000 from its initial response and
submitted a BAFO offer for the project in the amount of $11,948,000.00. Without PAT
POPE’s provision of inside information to CDM, NIX FOWLER CONSTRUCTION would
have been the lowest offeror and, thereby, been awarded the McNair Project. (See
Exhibit AA).
5. PAT POPE Manipulates Scoring of Offerors
PAT POPE manipulated the scoring process for the McNair Project in order to
give the award to CDM. Specifically, she instructed Paulette Strain, an evaluator and
47
scorer for the McNair Project, to significantly change her score to ensure that CDM won
the contract award. CDM did in fact win the contract and, in turn, continued to pay A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for work performed on the McNair Project.
6. Money to TONY POPE
The McNair project was awarded to CDM on April 20, 2006. (See Exhibit R).
CDM contracted with TONY POPE to provide Architectural services and drawings, and
over the course of the project paid TONY POPE One Hundred Sixty-Six Thousand Two
Hundred Sixty-Two dollars ($166,242.00) from the funds it received from DCSD..
7. Concealment of TONY POPE ’s participation in the
McNair Project
CDM listed Vernell Barnes as the Architect of Record and paid him One Hundred
Seventy-Five Thousand Four Hundred Two dollars ($175,402.00) for Architectural
services on the project. Of this money, Vernell Barnes paid over Twenty Thousand
dollars to TONY POPE. PAT POPE never disclosed to DCSD that A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. was part of the Design-Build team on CDM’s RFP
Although Vernell Barnes was listed as the Architect, TONY POPE, not Mr.
Barnes, prepared the design portion of C.D. MOODY’s RFP response and utilizing the
inside-information not made available to the other Design-Build firms. In that regard,
TONY POPE utilized electronic communications in interstate commerce in furtherance
of the scheme to defraud and to conceal his participation in it. He sent the following
emails to Barnes, C.D. Moody, PAT POPE, and other CDM employees involved in the
48
McNair Project during the restricted pre-offer period of the project. (See Exhibits BB1-
BB11):
Email # Date Sent to: Substance
1 2/17/06 Vernell Barnes “We are pursuing the McNair Cluster, not Arabia
Mountain. Darlene accidentally copied both
packages.” (emphasis added)
2 2/22/06 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody,
Dave Fragala
“David, I am pressed to wrap up Columbia and
Fairfield today and tomorrow. Can we meet
Friday afternoon to discuss approach [sic] to this
project at your office. If this is a good day, let me
know what time and I will coordinate with
Vernell. Thanks.” (emphasis added)
3 2/27/06 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody,
Dave Fragala
“I am attaching a copy of the floor plan diagram
for the existing building for your records. There
are 28 classrooms We would have to bring this
one up 27 rooms. Almost double size. We need
to check on this. Not sure if there is adequate
land to support a building of such size.”
(emphasis added)
4 3/4/06 Ron Nance18
“In developing a new school, are there any state
guidelines or criteria to determining the size of
the athletic and play fields for schools? We are
doing a proposal for an addition/possible new
school on existing site and the classroom
requirements have doubled what was on the
original site.” (emphasis added)
5 3/4/06 PAT POPE Forward of email response from Ron Nance
6 3/6/06 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody,
Dave Fragala
“Please send all request to Vernell. I am assisting
on this project but cannot be disclosed. From
now on, all correspondence goes to him. You can
[carbon copy] me. I will track down those
figures.” (emphasis added)
7 3/10/06 James
Camacho19
“James: Please give Diane Maddox a ring at C.D.
Moody Construction. We are pursuing a
18
State of Georgia Department of Education. 19
A kitchen consultant
49
design/build package for DeKalb County Schools
and there is a kitchen and cafeteria component.”
(emphasis added)
8 3/20/06 Vernell Barnes “Vernell: Pat indicated that the existing gym
does not have toilets with the building. Have you
seen the inside of the complex? If it does not
have toilets, then there is not much worth keeping
with the building.”
9 3/20/06 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody,
Dave Fragala
“David, proposed new building wall section to be
6” 16 gage metal studs, 6”rock mineral wool
insulation, ½” sheathing, building wrap and 7.5
mm eterpan-MD board. Exposed stainless steel
fasteners. You should have the contract from the
Gammon Project where we considered the use of
the product. I spoke with Pat about it and she
was fine. Asked us to use on existing building
also to tie thee [sic] two together.” (emphasis
added)
10 3/20/06 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody,
Dave Fragala
“Spoke with DeKalb today concerning the
project off line. One major issue is to make
sure that the existing utilities can support the
proposed building and additions. We need to
make sure we all know where the utilities enter
the site, etc. Was also told that the existing
multi-purpose building might have toilets.
Need to verify. If it does not, then it is more
than likely that we should loose the building
and building new. I am working on an updated
site plan to send to all later today. In our cost
proposal, we need to provide a cost to tear
down the existing components we are salvaging
and build new in same design pattern. Pat
expressed that the Board Member is really
interested in a new building.” (emphasis
added)
11 3/22/06 From Fragala
to:
TONY POPE
Vernell Barnes
“Tony, we are out at the site today. We need to
get a scaled site plan with the new pods on it. I
am not sure that they are going to fit like your
sketches.” (emphasis added)
12 4/13/0620
C.D. Moody “We will be in your office tomorrow at 1 p.m. to
review the [architectural and engineering]
contracts and proposed [architectural]
20
This is one week prior to the Notice of Award being sent out.
50
arrangement for this project.” (emphasis added)
51
8. TONY POPE’s Post-Award Efforts to Conceal
His Participation
After CDM was awarded the project, TONY POPE utilized electronic
communications in interstate in order to conceal and hide his involvement in the McNair
project. (See Exhibit CC).
Email # Date Sent to: Substance
1 7/5/2006 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody,
Dave Fragala
“The documents received from Barnes where
[sic] not stamped. Due to the timing of this, I
have stamped the drawings and taking for
permit today. I will send a cover letter stating
that I was doing peer review and stamping
for the demolition to put in file. Since these
will have to remain on site, my name
might be seen.” (emphasis added)
TONY POPE later removed these drawings from the DeKalb County Permit
Office and destroyed them. Additionally, TONY POPE failed to provide any pay
applications for this project and, in response to the District Attorney’s criminal subpoena
request, falsely denied that any existed
52
c. MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL CENTER (MIC) Project
1. Background
MIC is a large complex that was formally made up of several warehouse-type
shopping stores. DCSD acquired this structure previously and since that time, performed
limited renovations on a portion of the structure in order to house the school system’s
driver’s education program. DCSD utilized the majority of this large structure as a
storage facility until the time that the MIC project was cleared for renovations. DCSD
authorized the build-out of the entire MIC project with the area designated for the
DeKalb Early College Academy (hereinafter DECA) taking precedence in the building
plan.
2. PAT POPE fires the Architect of Record
DCSD initially designated MIC a Design-Bid-Build Project, with CDH
PARTNERS (hereinafter CDH) to be its Architect of Record.21
On July, 23, 2007, DCSD
awarded an architectural and engineering services contract to CDH. Although CDH,
executed the contracts on August 14, 2007, and returned them to DCSD, PAT POPE
never signed them. (See Exhibit DD). In late August of 2007, PAT POPE informed
CDH that the school system was going in a “different direction” and would not execute
the contract. No further explanation was provided to CDH. The Board was not informed
or consulted in this decision.
21
Consistent with other Design-Bid-Build delivery methods, DCSS entered into two separate contracts –
first with architect CDH and later with a contractor.
53
On August 30, 2007, DCSD emailed a request to THE CHAMPION NEWSPAPER to
place an advertisement22
soliciting RFP’s for this project using the Design-Build delivery
method.23
(See Exhibit EE). The RFP advertisement announced a mandatory pre-
proposal conference for all potential offerors to be held on September 11, 2007. (See
Exhibit FF). Representatives from MERIT, A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC., NIX-
FOWLER CONSTRUCTION, and C.D. MOODY attended. (See Exhibit GG).
The Minutes of that meeting clearly document DCSD’ intention to award a
Design-Build contract for the renovation or “build out” of the entire MIC structure with
the DECA portion to be completed first. (See Exhibit HH). In addition to the meeting
minutes, the advertisement and the Program Narrative (part of the RFP package) made
clear that only one Design-Build contract was to be awarded for all necessary renovations
to the entire MIC structure.
3. Advertising One Scope of Work
TONY POPE emailed Amy Sue Mann, PAT POPE, and Mark Schiling [MERIT
CONSTRUCTION] on September 19, 2007, asking for a “request for information” (pursuant
to the procedures set up for pre-proposal questions) related to the MIC project which was
out for RFP. (See Exhibit II). In that email, TONY POPE references “the Merit Design
team” indicating his intention to team with MERIT CONSTRUCTION to form a Design-
Build team that would make an offer on the MIC project. TONY POPE sent a second
22
As noted, placement of such an advertisement is required under the Georgia competitive award statutes
requiring advertisements to be posted in the “legal organ” for the county. 23
Under the design-build method the contractor pays the architect, unlike the Design-Bid-Build method,
where the architect is under contract with and is paid by the Owner.
54
follow-up email the next day requesting clarification concerning one of the requirements
and once again doing so on behalf the MERIT Design team.” (See Exhibit JJ)
DCSD issued an Addendum #1 to the RFP request on September 24, 2007 and
scheduled a second mandatory pre-proposal conference on October 4, 2007 (See Exhibit
KK). TONY POPE as a representative of his company, A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., attended, while PAT POPE conducted the meeting. The minutes
from this meeting reiterate the intention of DCSD to award one contract that would
encompass all needed design and construction services to renovate or “build out” the
entire MIC structure so that it could accommodate certain schools and departments. (See
Exhibit LL).
Offers in response to the RFP were due on October 18, 2007. Only three offers
were submitted to DCSD. The Design-Build team of MERIT and A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. did not submit a RFP response because MERIT had last minute
concerns about their bonding capability and their liability in having to employ and
oversee an architect.
DCSD used a scoring system for prospective offerors similar to the one used in
the McNair Project in which each listed criteria is given a weighted percentage value.
Based on the Interview Evaluation scores and the Proposal Evaluations, Hogan received
the highest (best) score with three hundred and ninety seven (397) points. (See Exhibit
MM).
55
4. PAT POPE limits Scope of Work
On October 23, 2007, PAT POPE faxed requests to all offerors for BAFO’S to
negotiate the best-offered price between the remaining companies for the MIC project.
(See Exhibit NN1-NN3). Rather than request BAFOs for the entire project as discussed in
previous Meeting Minutes, this fax only requested the best lump sum price for the DECA
portion of the project and for providing a new roof for the entire structure. HOGAN
provided the lowest (best) BAFO figure and the overall most advantageous offer. (See
Exhibit OO). DCSD subsequently awarded HOGAN a contract solely for the build-out of
the DECA portion of the MIC structure. (See Exhibit PP). The awarded project was a
much smaller project than what was publicly advertised by DCSD originally. DCSD
never issued a BAFO request for the best-offered price for the entire MIC structure,
thereby violating the Competitive Award Statutes.24
5. PAT POPE’s misrepresentation to the Board of
Education
On November 11, 2007, PAT POPE presented the contract award of the DECA
portion of the MIC project as an Agenda Item to the Board. (See Exhibit QQ). She did
not mention to the Board or make clear that the entire MIC structure was the actual
project that was previously advertised by the DCSD. PAT POPE significantly changed
the character and extent of the project and then failed to advertise this smaller project as
24
O.C.G.A.§ 36-91-20 (b)(5), & (h)(6).
56
required by law.25
She also misrepresented her actions to the Board. Eventually, HOGAN
acquiesced and signed the Design-Build contract for “Mountain Industrial Center Tenant
Build Out – DECA Program” on December 12, 2007.
6. Fraudulent Creation of “MIC II”
In regards to the MIC Project, PAT POPE consistently manipulated the process
in order to ensure that A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. received revenue. In early
February, 2008, DCSD placed its advertisement for a Design-Build project for the
remainder of the MIC structure. (See Exhibit RR). According to the advertisement,
responses to the RFP were due on March 18, 2008, and a mandatory pre-proposal
conference was scheduled to take place on March 4, 2008. The attendees at this pre-
proposal conference included representatives from NIX-FOWLER CONSTRUCTION, HOGAN,
and A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. (See Exhibit SS). Only NIX-FOWLER (who
teamed with TONY POPE), and HOGAN submitted RFP responses on March 18, 2008.
DCSD awarded the NIX-FOWLER and A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. team the
MIC project in April of 2008, minus the construction related to DECA for Seventeen
Million Six Hundred Forty-Six Thousand dollars ($17,646,000.00). (See Exhibit TT).
25
Pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 36-91-20 (b)(5), “contract opportunities that will be awarded by competitive
sealed proposals shall be publicly advertised with a request for proposal which request shall included
conceptual program information in the request for proposals describing the requested services in a level of
detail appropriate to the project delivery method selected for the project.”
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-91-20 (h)(6), “the advertisement shall include such details and specifications as
will enable the public to know the extent and character of the work to be done.”
57
7. Misrepresentation to DCSD Counsel
Prior to the contract award, it became apparent that TONY POPE’S involvement
on the MIC project was being questioned due to the inherent conflict of interest. On
March 26, 2008, PAT POPE issued a memo to Amy Sue Mann (DCSD) indicating that
legal counsel had reviewed the issue and there was no conflict. (See Exhibit UU). In
actuality, PAT POPE consulted DCSD General Counsel, Stan Hawkins on the matter
generally, but did not give him the full set of facts surrounding TONY POPE’S
involvement in the MIC project. PAT POPE never told Mr. Hawkins that TONY was
going to be part of a team submitting an RFP response on a project such as MIC.
8. Misrepresentation to DCSD Board
During the presentation of the MIC project to the Board, PAT POPE never
disclosed the involvement of TONY POPE or the role of his company in the MIC
project. (See Exhibit VV). The Board, with the recommendation of PAT POPE,
approved the contract award to NIX-FOWLER for Seventeen Million Six Hundred Forty-
Six Thousand dollars ($17,646,000.00). That contract contained a design fee26
of 4.85%,
totaling Eight Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Thirty-One dollars ($855,831.00), which
was paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. (See page 22 of Exhibit WW). On
May 11, 2008, CRAWFORD LEWIS signed the contract with NIX-FOWLER. The
contract specifically mentioned A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as being involved
in this project (Exhibit WW, page 37).
58
9. Additional Money to TONY POPE
Less than a month after the MIC contract award, DCSD instructed NIX-FOWLER
to conduct a study to see if all DCSD administrative offices could be moved to MIC;
however, the study called for the expertise of an architect. In February, 2009, PAT
POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS executed a Two Million Four Hundred Forty-Three
Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Nine dollars ($2,443,839.00) Change Order to cover the
cost associated with the approved plan to move all DCSD administration into MIC.
TONY POEP benefitted from this award.
26
The amount paid to the architectural company.
59
d. ARABIA MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL Project
1. Background
Prior to her employment with A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. or DCSD,
PAT POPE worked for a subsidiary corporation of TURNER CONSTRUCTION. In 2006,
DCSD, with the recommendation of PAT POPE, awarded the Arabia Mountain High
School Project to TURNER CONSTRUCTION, even though both their original offer and
BAFO were higher than that of their competitor, WINTER CONSTRUCTION.27
Shortly
thereafter, PAT POPE began soliciting and receiving expensive tickets to various
sporting events on behalf of herself and CRAWFORD LEWIS from TURNER
CONSTRUCTION.
2. Forged tally sheets
PAT POPE was one of seven panelists who formed the selection committee
awarding the construction contract for the Arabia Mountain High School Project. The
panelists interviewed the companies and scored the offers submitted. The original score
tally and ranking forms support DCSD giving the Arabia Project to WINTER.28
Four panelists did not sign or view the final “Score Tally and Ranking Sheet,”
which is the totality of all the evaluations scores and is used as a basis for awarding
construction contracts on the Score Tally and Ranking Sheet. PAT POPE forged the
signatures of Roberta Unger, Joseph Brew, and Wayne Tyler. Contrary to what Roberta
Unger actually scored, the forged document inaccurately scored TURNER higher in the
category of Approach, during the selection time. (See Exhibit XX). In particular, the
27
TURNER’s BAFO only becomes lower after the “Add Alternates,” a weighted criterion, are stricken.
60
“original” documents containing the panelists’ signatures are actually scanned computer
generated colored copies of their original signatures, which they did not authorize. PAT
POPE was the only panelist out of the seven to score for TURNER on an original,
unforged tally sheet and she was the only one to control the documents after they were
collected from the other committee members.
3. Bribery of CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
Shortly after winning the Arabia Mountain Project, TURNER sought to win the
contract with DCSD for the Tucker High School Project. TURNER recognized that
CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE controlled information given to the Board in
connection with its decisions concerning contracts to construction companies in excess of
Fifty Thousand dollars ($50,000.00). Shortly after the Arabia Mountian Project was
awarded to TURNER, and while other larger projects were planned which TURNER would
be eligible to win, PAT POPE repeatedly solicited gifts from TURNER on behalf of
herself and CRAWFORD LEWIS.
For example, in 2008, TURNER bought Thirty-Five Thousand Four Hundred
dollars ($35,400.00) worth of Master’s Golf Tournament tickets at the request of PAT
POPE. Approximately ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) worth of those tickets were
utilized by DCSD employees. PAT POPE received six tickets for four days to the
Masters – four of which CRAWFORD LEWIS used. Additionally, PAT POPE also
received tickets to the Masters in February 2009 worth Three Thousand Three Hundred
28
The score tally and ranking form are documents indicating the overall rankings of contractors that
submitted offers on the project
61
and Ninety-Nine dollars ($3,399.00). In 2009, TURNER gave approximately 24 premium
tickets, to approximately 6 Atlanta Hawks’ games to PAT POPE, TONY POPE and
CRAWFORD LEWIS. PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS concealed the receipt
of these gifts from the Board contrary to Board Policy GAJ.29
29
See EXHIBIT A.
62
3. OTHER ACTS of FRAUD
a. Benefit to PAT POPE – Commingling of funds
TONY POPE transferred $163,362.09 paid by DCSD to ANTHONY VINCENT
POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 30
into an account for P2 HOLDINGS,31
which he jointly owned
with PAT POPE, through a series of checks, as follows:
From Bank of America Check # To Amount Date
AVP&A 2776 P2 HOLDINGS $ 5,528.00 12/20/2005
AVP&A 2791 P2 HOLDINGS $ 25,000.00 01/04/2006
AVP&A 2855 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,762.80 02/27/2006
AVP&A 2905 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 06/06/2006
AVP&A 2938 P2 HOLDINGS $ 4,779.00 06/06/2006
AVP&A 2944 P2 HOLDINGS $ 4,117.00 06/14/2006
AVP&A 2947 P2 HOLDINGS $ 3,175.29 06/14/2006
AVP&A 2993 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/17/2006
AVP&A 2994 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 2995 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 2996 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 2997 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 2998 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 2999 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 3000 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 3001 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 3002 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 08/18/2006
AVP&A 3035 P2 HOLDINGS $ 7,909.00 09/29/2006
AVP&A 3129 P2 HOLDINGS $ 8,088.40 03/26/2007
b. CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE solicit bribes
HEERY-MITCHELL oversaw construction contracts prior to PAT POPE’s
employment by DCSD. Shortly after being employed by DCSD, she fired this company
and replaced them with GUDE MANAGEMENT GROUP (hereinafter GUDE). PAT POPE
30
As noted, PAT POPE was Chief Financial Officer (hereinafter CFO) and Secretary of A. VINCENT
POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. from April 2005 to October 2007 with a principal office address of 1901
Montreal Road Tucker, GA.
63
knew the owner, Samuel Gude from their days working at another construction company.
Immediately after hiring GUDE and during her tenure as COO, PAT POPE repeatedly
solicited GUDE to provide tickets to various social functions including:
Multiple tickets to the Atlanta Falcons totaling Three Thousand Three Hundred
Ninety-One dollars and Twenty-Five cents ($3,391.25) for her and TONY POPE.
Four (4) Tickets to the 2007 Final Four Tournament totaling Eighteen Thousand Six
Hundred Twenty-Two dollars ($18,622.00) for her and TONY POPE.
Numerous Tickets to the Fox Theater totaling Nine Hundred Twenty dollars
($920.00) for her and TONY POPE.
Multiple Tickets to the 2008 Atlanta Mayor’s Ball for her, TONY POPE, and
CRAWFORD LEWIS.
If GUDE did not provide the tickets solicited, PAT POPE would berate Samuel
Gude over some aspect of his job, implying that he would lose his contract. The hostility
would continue until he acquiesced to her request or referred her to another source to
fulfill the request. For example, PAT POPE solicited Samuel Gude to pay for
CRAWFORD LEWIS’ vacation to New York City. Mr. Gude declined and referred her
to another source.
In February, 2010, Board counsel SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, in violation of
Board Policy GAJ, gave CRAWFORD LEWIS two suite tickets to an Atlanta Hawks
game valued, while the division of work between them and other counsel was still being
negotiated with DCSD and in anticipation of renegotiation of their initial flat-fee rate.
(See Exhibit VV).
Also, Arthur Queen of EGM, a company providing services provide Falcons
tickets to PAT POPE - $1580.00 in 2008; $3536.00 in 2009. (See Exhibit VV1).
31
A company account he owned with PAT POPE. She also served as Registered Agent P2 HOLDINGS,
LLC which utilized her home address as the registered office, from September 2005 to May 16, 2008.
64
c. Illegal Car Purchases
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS
During his tenure of CRAWFORD LEWIS as Superintendent, he and PAT
POPE were the only DCSD employees to purchase their DCSD assigned vehicles at a
substantial price reduction.
Contrary to law, CRAWFORD LEWIS purchased a 2006 Ford 500 from the
DCSD on July 5, 2007 for Five Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Six dollars and Twenty-
Five cents ($5,766.25). (See Exhibit YY). This figure represents approximately thirty-
five percent (35%) of the Kelly Blue Book value of the vehicle at the time of the
purchase. DCSD originally purchased the car for the amount of Twenty-Three Thousand
Fifty-Five dollars ($23,055.00) on October 26, 2005 and it had 24,345 miles at the time
of the purchase by CRAWFORD LEWIS.
PAT POPE oversaw the DCSD vehicle fleet. In April 2007, CRAWFORD
LEWIS began discussions with her concerning the purchase of the 2006 Ford 500. While
DCSD researched the potential purchase, CRAWFORD LEWIS was involved in a car
accident in this same car during a trip to Savannah, Georgia.32
Contrary to the provisions
that cars are to be purchased by governments (not individuals) in “as-is” condition, on
June 29, 2007, after the accident and immediately prior the purchase, CRAWFORD
LEWIS turned the car in for new tires and other repairs. The cost of the tires was Four
Hundred Twenty dollars $420.00, excluding labor. (See Exhibit ZZ). The cost of the
repairs was Five Hundred Seventy-Three dollars and Forty-Seven cents ($573.47),
32
The State of Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) policy permits the sale of
government vehicles at a specified percentage to local governments and non-profit organizations, but not to
individuals. DOAS policies and procedures with regards to the sale of surplus property indicates all
property can only be transferred by the State of Georgia in “As-Is, Where-Is” condition.
65
excluding labor. (See Exhibit AAA). During the investigation into this improper
purchase, CRAWFORD LEWIS lied to Investigator W.C. Nix of the DeKalb District
Attorney’s Office falsely stating that the efforts to purchase the car were made only after
the accident – indicating that the accident occurred, the car was fixed, and then he
purchased it. In fact, the discussions to purchase the car began two months prior to the
accident.
2. PAT POPE
On April 3, 2008, PAT POPE purchased a 2005 Ford Explorer from DCSD for
Five Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Two dollars and Fifty cents ($5,442.50) (See Exhibit
BBB). This figure represents thirty-five percent (35%) of the appraised value. The
original purchase price of the vehicle was Twenty-Six Thousand dollars ($26,000.00) and
it had 22,300 miles at the time of the purchase. Prior to purchasing it, PAT POPE also
submitted a “punch list” of things she wanted repaired on the vehicle prior to purchasing
it. The cost of these repairs, excluding labor, were One Thousand Three Hundred Forty-
Two dollars and Forty-Nine cents ($1,342.49) which DCSD paid (See Exhibit CCC).
The title to the car was then put in PAT POPE’s name contrary to the above mentioned
State of Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) policy.
66
d. Improper Use of DCSD Purchasing Card
DCSD issued CRAWFORD LEWIS a purchasing card, (hereinafter P-Card). He
was authorized to use that card to purchase gasoline and various incidentals related to his
job. He fraudulently used his P-card in various methods.
1. Theft: CRAWFORD LEWIS pays for personal vacation
For example, on June 17, 2008, CRAWFORD LEWIS called Marcus Turk, CFO
of DCSD and stated to Turk that he was going on vacation and was short on funds. He
asked if he could use the P-Card to pay for his hotel. Turk advised CRAWFORD
LEWIS that such actions were illegal. The next day, Lewis repeated the same request
and received the same response. Despite these warnings, CRAWFORD LEWIS used his
DCSD P-Card to pay for a hotel room at The Lucayan in Freeport, Bahamas for Two
Hundred Ninety-Five and Twenty cents ($295.20). (See Exhibit DDD). No official
business was conducted during this stay.
2. Theft: CRAWFORD LEWIS pays for unauthorized
personal activities
CRAWFORD LEWIS used his position at DCSD to initiate and facilitate an
affair with DCSD employee Audria Berry. Specifically, he paid for a room using his P-
Card at The Ritz Carlton in Greensboro, Georgia, on March 12, 2008, which he used
exclusively for personal use with a female subordinate accompanying him. (See Exhibit
EEE).
67
C. LEWIS’ knowledge and facilitation of criminal activities
By statute, CRAWFORD LEWIS is the executive officer of the local Board of
Education.33
In that capacity, he manipulated and colluded with general and outside
counsel to ensure that, although he had implicated PAT POPE in limited criminal
activity, the depth and breadth of those acts would not be revealed. No later than 2008,
CRAWFORD LEWIS possessed knowledge of PAT POPE’s illegal activity in the
following particulars but did not remove her from office or stop payments to TONY
POPE:
1. LEWIS’ knowledge of PAT POPE’s illegal actions
Date Parties involved Salient points
11/26/2008 -Crawford Lewis
-Inv. W.C. Nix Inv. Nix questions Lewis about using his P-Card for numerous
fraudulent gasoline purchases which were not justified by the
miles driven. Lewis states Nix does not need to be investigating
him, he needs to investigate Pat Pope for hiring her husband
and giving him contracts which he was not entitled too.
12/15/2008 -Crawford Lewis
-Pat Pope
-Ron Ramsey
Pat Pope’s computers are assigned to DCSD Internal Affairs
12-18-2008 Lewis notifies Board the DA is starting an investigation.
33
O.C.G.A. ' 20-2-109 provides:
“The local school superintendent shall constitute the medium of communication between the State
School Superintendent and subordinate local school officers. The local school superintendent shall be
the executive officer of the local board of education; shall be the agent of the local board in procuring
such school equipment and materials as it may order; shall ensure that the prescribed textbooks are
used by students; shall verify all accounts before an application is made to the local board for an order
for payment; and shall keep a record of all official acts, which, together with all the books, papers, and
property appertaining to the office, shall be turned over to the successor. It shall be the local school
superintendent's duty to enforce all regulations and rules of the State School Superintendent and of the
local board according to the laws of the state and the rules and regulations made by the local board that
are not in conflict with state laws; and to visit every school within the local school system to become
familiar with the studies taught in the schools, observe what advancement is being made by the
students, counsel with the faculty, and otherwise aid and assist in the advancement of public
education.”
68
2. LEWIS’ knowledge and facilitation of PAT POPE’s illegal actions
Date Parties involved Salient points
12-22-2008 -Crawford Lewis
-John Hinchey34
-Greg Morgan35
-Al Phillips36
-Josie Alexander37
-Felecia Mitchell38
-Dale Davis39
(See EXHIBIT FFF)
Meeting in the Superintendent’s Office
-discussed improprieties in contract under Pat.
-Greg Morgan states the architectural service performed by
Tony Pope was out of line.
-Lewis relates that Pat Pope had attempted to blackmail him 3
weeks previous.
-John Hinchey states that Pat “misrepresented the committee”
-Lewis suggests Josie/John talk to Pat’s attorneys to align with
her as long as she is not a target.
-Lewis states “when Pat recommended that we not continue
with Program/Project management with Heery – she wanted to
hire her friends.”
-Morgan reminds everyone “the law states Tony Pope doing
projects disclosed or not – any government employee who
profits directly or indirectly is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
-Lewis notes that he spoke to Vernall Barnes about the MIC
project and CD Moody paid him out of pocket.
Lewis asks “does Pat want all the people exposed?”
34
Outside Counsel - specifically, an attorney with King & Spalding, the firm representing DCSD in their
lawsuit against Heery Mitchell. 35
Outside Counsel - specifically, an attorney with Phillips & Morgan, construction counsel for DCSD. The
only attorney that points out what PAT POPE did was a crime. Shortly thereafter, this law firm was
replaced. 36
Outside Counsel - specifically, an attorney with Phillips & Morgan, construction counsel for DCSD. 37
Outside Counsel - specifically, an attorney who served a general counsel for DCSD. 38
Lewis’ Chief of Staff . 39
Spokesperson for DCSD.
69
1-14-2009 -Crawford Lewis
-John Hinchey
-Greg Morgan
-Al Phillips
-Josie Alexander
-Felecia Mitchell
-Dale Davis
(See EXHIBIT GGG)
Meeting at law office of Phillips & Morgan Office
Discussion re: Pat Pope
-discussion regarding ongoing issues with getting documents
fom Pat Pope.
-Lewis: asks John Hinchey, civil trial counsel to recap his
meeting with Pat Pope’s attorney, Manny Aurora.
-Lewis lists terms to be discussed in meeting with Pope about
her separation:
•Pope to work with K&S attorneys
•Wants Pat to know “we will not do anything to
disparage her and ask that she not disparage the district
or anyone else.”
•Become a consultant until her contract expires.
-Lewis states “I don’t trust Pat. If Pat goes for blood, we will
go for blood.”
-Josie Alexander: “if she goes for blood, we will go for blood
(expose any person involved—Tony, Moody, etc.)”
2-13-2009 -Crawford Lewis
-Pat Pope
(See EXHIBIT HHH)
-Pat Pope is given a new employee contract and a
pay raise by Crawford Lewis.
9-4-2009 -Crawford Lewis
-Pat Pope
-Tony Pope
(See EXHIBIT III)
- At PAT POPE’s request, LEWIS authorizes $823.35 payment
of DCSD money to Tony Pope’s attorneys in civil case in
violation of Board policy.
10-12-2009
Search Warrants issue against DCSD; Pat Pope; Tony Pope;
and CD Moody.
11-9-2009
SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN replaces Phillips &
Morgan as DCSD counsel.
70
11-9-2009 -Crawford Lewis
-Bill Wildman40
-Alice Thompson
-Ramona Tyson
(See EXHIBIT JJJ)
Correspondence
-SUTHERLAND attorney, Bill Wildman writes to Lewis that he
has spoken with King & Spalding attorney John Hinchey
(outside counsel representing DCSD in the civil suit against
HEERY) about doing an audit of the SPLOST program under
Pat Pope. Wildman relates his agreement with Hinchey’s
position that
“while the need for the School System exists to
understand if there had been any wrongdoing it would
be best to wait until after the Heery Mitchell trial.”
12-17-2009 -Crawford Lewis
Unknown to the Board, Crawford Lewis directs Board counsel
SUTHERLAND to represent senior DCSD personnel and to
have the District Attorney’s office work through them if “any
information is need[ed] from anyone else”
11-30-2009
through
7-16-2010
-Crawford Lewis Unknown to the Board, SUTHERLAND bills DCSD
$50,435.00 for representing Crawford Lewis.
6-30-2010
Never terminated, PAT POPE’s contract expires and is not
renewed.
40
Outside Counsel - specifically, an attorney with SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN.
71
D. LEWIS’ acts sabotaging and hindering the Criminal Investigation
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and PAT POPE, engaged in acts which hindered the
investigation into the illegal activities previously enumerated. Specifically, the parties
engaged in acts such as: appointing the target of the investigation, PAT POPE, as the
person that responded to criminal subpoenas; failure to respond to subpoenas; tampering
with evidence; and, false statements. Additionally, TONY POPE hindered the
investigation by failing to produce documents in his possession in respond to subpoenas
regarding MIC and McNair Project.
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS appoints the target of the investigation, PAT
POPE, to respond to District Attorney’s subpoenas
During the investigation, the District Attorney’s Office subpoenaed documents
necessary to examine the allegations of fraud perpetrated by PAT POPE. The subpoenas
were directed to the Director of Internal Affairs for DCSD. CRAWFORD LEWIS
ordered the Director to forward the subpoenas to PAT POPE as the person to respond to
these requests. PAT POPE, in turn, only produced a miniscule number of documents in
response to the subpoenas, knowingly withholding documents responsive to the
subpoenas. Due to this lack of compliance, the District Attorney’s Office executed a
search warrant at the Sam Moss Center on October, 13, 2009. The search resulted in
approximately fifty (50) banker’s boxes of documents compared to the approximately
three (3) inches thick worth of documents that PAT POPE provided.
72
The responsive documents that PAT POPE did not turn over to the District
Attorney’s office include:
Item Received
by Subpoena
Received
by Search
Warrant
Columbia High School
All bid submissions for Additions
and HVAC projects.
Incomplete
Original bid tabs for Additions and
HVAC projects.
All executed Change Orders with
backup documentation.
Incomplete
All Department of Education
correspondence.
Incomplete
Change Orders and Change Order
requests for Deferred SPLOST II
work.
Incomplete
All pre-bid documents in reference
to the A/E scope of work and
construction scope of work.
.Original contract with A. Vincent
Pope and Associates.
All meeting minutes. Incomplete
Non-collusion affidavits.
McNair Cluster Elementary
Complete RFP responses by C.D.
Moody and Nix-Fowler.
BAFO responses by C.D. Moody
and Nix-Fowler.
Original evaluations of RFP
interviews.
Contract and correspondence with
Brown Design Group.
All meeting minutes of the Board
regarding McNair.
Non-collusion affidavits
73
Mountain Industrial Center
All evaluation/tally sheets for MIC
#1.
All handwritten evaluation sheets
for MIC #2.
All meeting minutes.
Offeror form for Hogan
Construction for MIC #2.
BAFO form for Hogan
Construction for MIC #2.
All sealed fee proposals.
Arabia Mountain
All contracts. Incomplete
All correspondences. Incomplete
All Change Orders with backup
documentation.
Incomplete
All payment applications and
payment records.
Incomplete
All original pre-proposal
documents, RFP responses, and
evaluation/tally sheets
Incomplete
All the evidence referenced above was received by way of search warrant
although it existed and was on site as of the dates of the subpoena.
2. CRAWFORD LEWIS gives False Statements
At times pertinent to the investigation, CRAWFORD LEWIS gave false
statements to the District Attorney’s Office during the investigation into construction
contracts. Specifically, CRAWFORD LEWIS
denied that PAT POPE was blackmailing or had blackmailed him. In fact,
PAT POPE called CRAWFORD LEWIS at the beginning of the District
74
Attorney’s investigation and told him that she knew things about him which
would damage him and she would tell everyone if the investigation did not
stop;
concealed the fact from Investigator W.C. Nix that TONY POPE approached
URS, a project management company, and represented that URS would win a
contract with DCSD if they partnered with him in a joint venture;
falsely stating he was not aware that PAT POPE was going to purchase her
DCSD Ford Explorer prior to the purchase when, in fact, he had ordered
David Guillory to expedite the purchase..
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS attempts to stop the District Attorney’s
Office criminal investigation
In April, 2006, PAT POPE fired HEERY-MITCHELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
(hereinafter HEERY-MITCHELL) as the Construction Program Manager for DCSD. As
Construction Program Manager, HEERY-MITCHELL oversaw all construction projects on
behalf of DCSD. HEERY-MITCHELL filed suit against DCSD for payments due to them.
DCSD counter-sued HEERY-MITCHELL. As of the date of this indictment; that civil
lawsuit is still pending.
During the Summer and early Fall of 2009, the District Attorney’s investigation
accelerated. On October 2, 2009, the DA’s Office interviewed DCSD construction
attorney Greg Morgan. Morgan subsequently reported to DCSD about the progress of the
investigation. Shortly thereafter, on October 8, 2009, CRAWFORD LEWIS
unsuccessfully attempted to contact Gwen Keyes-Fleming, District Attorney. He then
75
spoke with Chief Assistant District Attorney Don Geary of the District Attorney’s Office
via telephone. During this conversation, CRAWFORD LEWIS requested Chief Geary
to “table” the District Attorney’s Office investigation. He characterized PAT POPE as
the star witness in the civil lawsuit and the need to keep her clean to prevent jeopardizing
the civil lawsuit. Chief Assistant Geary refused to table the investigation.
76
PART VI - Acts of Racketeering Activity
The acts below constitute a pattern of racketeering activity in that they were
committed in furtherance of one or more incidents, schemes or transactions that had the
same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission or
otherwise were interrelated by distinguishing characteristics.
A. COLUMBIA HIGH SCHOOL
1. PAT POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five Hundred dollars
($500.00), the property of the DeKalb County School System, with the intent to deprive
said owner of said property, as detailed below which constitutes racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix).
Act Scope Date Issued To Amount
1 Authorizing Change Order #2 3/10/2006 TONY POPE $ 179,690.00
2 Authorizing Change Order #3 7/25/2006 TONY POPE $ 268,766.54
3 Authorizing Addendum #1 5/1/2007 TONY POPE $ 625,000.00
4 Authorizing Addendum #2 12/13/2007 TONY POPE $ 52,000.00
77
b. Acts Involving Theft
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did engage in the below listed acts involving theft which are punishable by imprisonment
of more than one year, and which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft Date Amount
5 Approval of Change Order #2 3/10/06 $176,690.00
6 Approval of Pay Application
for Change Order #2
7 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Change
Order #2
8 Approval of Change Order #3 7/25/06 $268,766.54
9 Approval of Pay Application
for Change Order #3
10 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Change
Order #3
11 Approval of Contract Extension
$ 1,635,976.00 Contract Extension
(Change Order #7 to HVAC)
6/12/07 $1,635,976.00
12 Approval of Pay Application for
$ 1,635,976.00 Contract Extension
(Change Order #7 to HVAC)
13 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Contract
Extension
8/13/07 $8,179,867.00
14 Approval of Addendum #1 5/9/07 $625,000.00
15 Approval of Pay Application for Addendum #1
16 Approval of Addendum #2 12/13/07 $52,000.00
17 Approval of Pay Application for Addendum #2
Refusal to seek reimbursement for Errors &
Omissions involving CHS Addition caused by A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
18 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #2
815/06 $20,291.00
19 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #4
9/22/06 $24,117.00
78
20 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #5
10/16/06 $16,250.00
21 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #6
10/16/06 $15437.00
22 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #7
10/16/06 $665.00
23 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #8
3/6/07 $25,038.00
24 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #9
4/16/07 $21,369.00
25 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #10
5/2/07 $1,107.00
Refusal to seek reimbursement for Errors&
Omissions involving the CHS HVAC caused by A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
26 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #1
815/06 $9,608.00
27 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #2
10/2/06 $958.00
28 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #3
10/2/06 $6,408.00
29 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #4
3/21/07 $8,065.00
30 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #5
4/16/07 $17,003.00
31 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #6
5/11//07 $15,569.00
32 for Errors & Omissions contained in
Change Order #9
4/26/07 $3,620.00
79
c. False Statements, O.C.G.A. §16-10-20
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did knowingly and willfully conceal a material fact, to wit: that Anthony Pope was
performing work which he was not authorized to perform and that he was receiving
payment thereon involving DeKalb County School System construction projects outside
of his original contract involving acts below, a matter within the jurisdiction of the
DeKalb County School System, a political subdivision of this state, as detailed below and
which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xv).
Act Scope
33 Approval of Change Order #2
34 Approval of Pay Application for Change Order #2
35 Presentation to the Board to Approve Change Order #2
36 Approval of Change Order #3
37 Approval of Pay Application for Change Order #3
38 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Change Order #3
39 Approval of Contract Extension $1,635,976.00 Contract Extension (Change
Order 7 to HVAC)
40 Approval of Pay Application for $1,635,976.00 Contract Extension (Change
Order 7 to HVAC)
41 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Contract Extension
42 Approval of Addendum #1
43 Approval of Pay Application for Addendum #1
44 Approval of Addendum #2
45 Approval of Pay Application for Addendum #2
80
d. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
having devised a scheme to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent
representations, knowingly caused to be delivered by mail a writing, for the purpose of
executing such scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341, which constitutes racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xxix).
Act Scope
46 Sending letter by U.S. mail on April 23, 2008 to the State Department of Education
attempting to justify illegal award on Columbia Project-Deferred SPLOST II
81
e. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent of the
DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in any one year
period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program,
obtain by fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United States currency, the
property of the DeKalb County School System, without their authority, as detailed below,
which constitutes theft chargeable under the laws of the United States, punishable by
imprisonment for more than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft Amount
47 Authorizing Change Order #2 issued on 3/10/2006 $ 179,690.00
48 Authorizing Change Order #3 issued on 7/25/2006 $ 268,766.54
49 Authorizing Addendum #1 issued on 5/1/2007 $ 625,000.00
50 Authorizing Addendum #2 issued on 12/13/2007 $ 52,000.00
82
2. TONY POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five Hundred dollars
($500.00), the property of the DeKalb County School System, with the intent to deprive
said owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitutes racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix).
Act Scope Issued To Amount
51 Benefit received from Change Order #2 TONY POPE $ 179,690.00
52 Benefit received from Change Order #3 TONY POPE $ 268,766.54
53 Benefit received from Addendum #1 TONY POPE $ 625,000.00
54 Benefit received from Addendum #2 TONY POPE $ 52,000.00
83
b. Acts Involving Theft
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft Date Amount
55 Submission of Change Order #2 3/10/06 $ 176,690.00
56 Submission of Pay Application for Change Order #2
57 Submission of Change Order #3 7/25/06 $ 286,766.54
58 Submission of Pay Application for Change Order #3
59 Submission of Contract Extension subsequently entitled
Change Order #7
6/12/07 $ 1,635,976.00
60 Submission of Pay Application for Contract Extension
61 Submission to the Board to Approve Contract Extension
subsequently entitled Change Order #7
8/13/07 $ 8,179,867.20
62 Submission of Addendum #1
63 Submission of Pay Application for Addendum #1
64 Submission of Addendum #2 12/13/07 $ 52,000.00
65 Submission of Pay Application for Addendum #2
84
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS
a. Thefts and Acts Involving Theft
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Act Act Relating to and Involving Theft Date Amount
66 Approval of Change Order #2 3/10/06 $176,690.00
67 Approval of Change Order #3 7/25/06 $286,766.54
68 Approval of Contract Extension subsequently entitled
Change Order #7
6/12/07 $1,635,976.00
69 Approval of Pay Application for Contract Extension
70 Approval of Addendum #1
71 Approval of Addendum #2 12/13/07 $52,000.00
72 Approval of Pay Application for Addendum #2
85
b. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did as an agent of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity
which receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars
($10,000.00) under a Federal program, obtain by fraud more than Five Thousand
($5000.00) in United States currency, the property of the DeKalb County School System,
without their authority, as detailed below, which constitutes theft chargeable under the
laws of the United States, punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft Amount
73 Authorizing Change Order #2 issued on 3/10/2006 $ 179,690.00
74 Authorizing Change Order #3 issued on 7/25/2006 $ 268,766.54
75 Authorizing Addendum #1 issued on 5/1/2007 $ 625,000
76 Authorizing Addendum #2 issued on 12/13/2007 $ 52,000
86
B. MCNAIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1. PAT POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2
PATRICA POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five
Hundred dollars ($500.00), the property of the DeKalb County School System, with the
intent to deprive said owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitutes
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Act Scope Amount
77 Payment for Architectural work to C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY SUBSEQUENTLY paid to A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
$ 166,242.00
87
b. Acts Involving Theft
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft
78 Termination of Brown Design Group
79 Changing of the judging criteria to weigh in favor of awarding the process of C.D.
MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
80 Ordering subordinates to change their score so that C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY would win the award
81 Holding a meeting with the representative of C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
and not holding the same meeting with any representative of a competing company
82 Giving TONY POPE inside information about the scoring criteria and particular
design that would be favored
88
c. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
having devised a scheme to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent
representations, knowingly caused to be delivered by mail a writing, for the purpose of
executing such scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341, which constitutes racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xxix).
Act Scope
83 Sending a letter by U.S. mail to the Georgia Department of Education notifying them
of the delivery method of McNair Project and representing Vernell Barnes to be the
sole architect of record
89
d. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent of the
DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in any one year
period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program,
obtain by fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United States currency, the
property of the DeKalb County School System, without their authority, as detailed below,
which constitutes theft chargeable under the laws of the United States, punishable by
imprisonment for more than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft
84 Award of $11,900,000 contract to C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY on
April 20, 2006
90
2. TONY POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five Hundred dollars
($500.00), the property of the DeKalb County School System, with the intent to deprive
said owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitutes racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Act Scope Amount
85 Accepting Payments for Architectural work on McNair which he
was not entitled to perform
$ 166,242.00
91
b. Acts Involving Theft
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft
86 Receiving inside information about the scoring criteria and particular design that
would be favored
87 Failing to attach his name to documents involving McNair Project so that his
participation would not be disclosed
88 Retrieving his architectural drawings from DeKalb County Permits Office and
replacing them with drawings that had Vernell Barnes’ stamp and seal
92
c. Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1343
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully devise a scheme to obtain money by means of false representations, and
did transmit by means of wire, in interstate commerce, writings, for the purpose of
executing such scheme which are acts involving theft chargeable under the laws of the
United States (18 U.S.C. 1343), and which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xxix).
Act Date Sent to: Substance
89 2/17/2006 Vernell Barnes “We are pursuing the McNair Cluster, not Arabia
Mountain. Darlene accidently copied both
packages.”
90 2/22/2006 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody, Dave
Fragala
“David, I am pressed to wrap up Columbia and
Fairfield today and tomorrow. Can we meet
Friday afternoon to discuss approach [sic] to this
project at your office. If this is a good day, let me
know what time and I will coordinate with
Vernell. Thanks.”
91 2/27/2006 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody, Dave
Fragala
“I am attaching a copy of the floor plan diagram
for the existing building for your records. There
are 28 classrooms PAT We would have to bring
this one up 27 room PAT Almost double size. We
need to check on this. Not sure if there is
adequate land to support a building of such size.”
92 3/4/2006 Ron Nance41
“In developing a new school, are there any state
guidelines or criteria to determining the size of
the athletic and play fields for schools? We are
doing a proposal for an addition/possible new
school on existing site and the classroom
requirements have doubled what was on the
original site.”
41
State of Georgia Department of Education.
93
93 3/4/2006 PAT POPE Forward of email response from Ron Nance
94 3/6/2006 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody, Dave
Fragala
“Please send all request to Vernell. I am
assisting on this project but cannot be
disclosed. From now on, all correspondence
goes to him. You can [carbon copy] me. I will
track down those figures.” (emphasis added)
95 3/10/2006 James Camacho “James: Please give Diane Maddox a ring at
C.D. Moody Construction. We are pursuing a
design/build package for DeKalb County
Schools and there is a kitchen and cafeteria
component.”
96 3/20/2006 Vernell Barnes “Vernell: Pat indicated that the existing gym
does not have toilets with the building. Have
you seen the inside of the complex? If does not
have toilets, then there is not much worth
keeping with the building.”
97 3/20/2006 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody, Dave
Fragala
“David, [p]roposed new building wall
section to be 6” 16 gauge metal studs,
6”rock mineral wool insulation, ½”
sheathing, building wrap and 7.5 mm
eterpan-MD board. Exposed stainless steel
fasteners. You should have the contract
from the Gammon Project where we
considered the use of the product. I spoke
with Pat about it and she was fine. Asked
us to use on existing building also to tie
thee [sic] two together.”
98 3/20/2006 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody, Dave
Fragala
“Spoke with DeKalb today concerning the
project off line. One major issue is to make
sure that the existing utilities can support the
proposed building and additions. WE need
to make sure we all know where the utilities
enter the site, etc. Was also told that the
existing multi-purpose building might have
toilets. Need to verify. If it does not, then it
is more than likely that we should loose the
building and building new. I am working on
an updated site plan to send to all later today.
In our cost proposal, we need to provide a
cost to tear down the existing components we
are salvaging and build new in same design
pattern. Pat expressed that the Board
Member is really interested in a new
building.” (emphasis added)
94
99 4/13/2006 C.D. Moody “We will be in your office tomorrow at 1 p.m.
to review the [architectural and engineering]
contracts and proposed [architectural]
arrangement for this project.”
100 7/5/2006 Vernell Barnes,
C.D. Moody, Dave
Fragala
“The documents received from Barnes where
[sic] not stamped. Due to the timing of this, I
have stamped the drawings and taking for
permit today. I will send a cover letter stating
that I was doing peer review and stamping
for the demolition to put in file. Since these
will have to remain on site, my name might
be seen.”
95
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five
Hundred dollars ($500.00), the property of the DeKalb County School System, with the
intent to deprive said owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitutes
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Act Scope Amount
101 Authorizing an Award of $11,900,000 contract to C.D. MOODY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PART OF which subsequently paid A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
$ 166,242.00
96
C. MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL CENTER
1. PAT POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2
PATRICA POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five
Hundred dollars ($500.00), the exact amount being unknown to the Grand Jury, the
property of the DeKalb County School System, with the intent to deprive said owner of
said property, as detailed below, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Act Scope Amount
102 Award of a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NIX-FOWLER containing a
$4.85% design fee which was paid to A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. ($855,831.00)
$855,831.00
103 Award of a $2,443,839.00 contract containing TONY POPE’s
name as designer to study MIC move
ongoing
97
b. Acts Involving Theft
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft
104 Terminating Brown Design Group to clear the way to re-bid the project and ensure
the employment TONY POPE
105 Failure to execute the contract with CDH PARTNERS coupled with the simultaneous
re-bid of the project as a Design/Bid construction delivery method to ensure the
employment TONY POPE
106 Failure to re-advertise once the character of the project was changed significantly
107 Presenting the DECA portion of the MIC award to the Board knowing that the
project, as changed, did not comply with Competitive Award Statutes
108 Award of a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NIX-FOWLER containing a $4.85% design
fee which was paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ($855,831.00)
109 Award of a $2,443,839.00 Change Order containing TONY POPE’s name as
designer to study MIC move
98
c. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent of
the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in any one
year period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal
program, obtain by fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United States currency,
the property of the DeKalb County School System, without their authority, as detailed
below, which constitutes theft chargeable under the laws of the United States, punishable
by imprisonment for more than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft
110 Award of a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NIX-FOWLER containing a $4.85% design fee
which was paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. in the amount of $855,831.00
111 Award of a $2,443,839.00 Change Order which benefited TONY POPE
99
2. TONY POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five Hundred dollars
($500.00), the property of the DeKalb County School System, with the intent to deprive
said owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitutes racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Act Scope Amount
112 Receipt of $855,831.00 for design work he was not was not entitled
to perform
$855,831.00
113 Receipt of payment for design to study MIC move he was not
entitled to perform
ongoing
100
b. Acts Involving Theft
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft Amount
114 Submission of multiple pay applications to receive payment on a
$855,831.00 for design work he was not was not entitled to
perform
$855,831.00
115 Submission of multiple pay applications to receive payment for
design to study MIC move he was not entitled to perform
ongoing
101
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS
a. Acts Involving Theft
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft
116 Knowing TONY POPE was working on the MIC project, he signed an award of
a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NIX-FOWLER which contained a $4.85% design fee
benefiting TONY POPE.
117 Knowing TONY POPE was working on the MIC Project, he signed award of a
$2,443,839.00 Change Order as designer to study MIC move.
102
b. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent
of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in any one
year period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal
program, obtain by fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United States currency,
the property of the DeKalb County School System, without their authority, as detailed
below, which constitutes theft chargeable under the laws of the United States, punishable
by imprisonment for more than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft
118 Authorizing Award of a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NIX-FOWLER containing a $4.85%
design fee which went to TONY POPE
119 Authorizing Award of a $2,443,839.00 Change Order benefiting TONY POPE
103
D. ARABIA MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL
1. PAT POPE
a. Forgery – First Degree, O.C.G.A. §16-9-1
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully alter a writing to wit: score tally sheets, in such a manner that the writing
as altered purports to have been made by authority of one who did not give such
authority, as detailed below, which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§16-14-3 (9)(A)(i)(viii).
Act Tally Sheets containing information PAT POPE forged
120 Tally Sheet of Wayne Tyler
121 Tally Sheet of Roberta Unger
122 Tally Sheet of Joseph Brew
104
b. False Statements and Writings, O.C.G.A. §16-10-20
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully use false writings in a matter within the jurisdiction of a political
subdivision of the State of Georgia knowing the same to be false, as detailed below,
which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(i)(xv).
Act Tally Sheets containing information added by PAT POPE
123 Tally Sheet of Wayne Tyler
124 Tally Sheet of Roberta Unger
125 Tally Sheet of Joseph Brew
105
c. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb, did
unlawfully as an employee of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity,
directly and indirectly solicit a thing of value, to wit: event tickets, from TURNER
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY by inducing the reasonable belief that the tickets would
influence her performance to perform any official action, as detailed below, which
constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3(9)(A)(xiii).
Act Gifts Solicited and Accepted
126 Six (6) tickets for four (4) days to the 2008 Masters totaling Thirty-Five
Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($35,400.00)
127 Approximately twenty-four (24) box seat tickets to the Atlanta Hawks
128 Two (2) tickets to the 2009 Masters totaling Three Thousand Three Hundred
Ninety-Nine dollars ($3399.00)
106
d. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent of the
DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in any one year
period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program,
did corruptly accept a thing of value of Five Thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more from
a person, intending to be influenced in connection with the business of DeKalb County
School System, and which is an act of bribery chargeable under the laws of the United
States punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and which constitute
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Gifts Demanded and Received
129 Six (6) tickets for four (4) days to the 2008 Masters totaling Thirty-Five
Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($35,400.00)
107
2. CRAWFORD LEWIS
a. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did unlawfully as an employee of the DeKalb County School System, a
governmental entity, directly and indirectly solicited a thing of value, to wit: tickets, from
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY by inducing the reasonable belief that the tickets would
influence his performance to perform any official action, as detailed below, which
constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3(9)(A)(xiii).
Act Gifts Demanded and Received
130 Six (6) tickets for four (4) days to the 2008 Masters totaling Thirty-Five
Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($35,400.00)
131 Approximately twenty-four (24) box seat tickets to the Atlanta Hawks
132 Two (2) tickets to the 2009 Masters totaling Three Thousand Three Hundred
Ninety-Nine dollars ($3399.00)
108
b. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent
of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in any one
year period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal
program, did corruptly accept a thing of value of Five Thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or
more from a person, intending to be influenced in connection with the business of
DeKalb County School System, and which is an act of bribery chargeable under the laws
of the United States punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and which
constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Gifts Demanded and Received
133 Six (6) tickets for four (4) days to the 2008 Masters totaling Thirty-Five
Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($35,400.00)
109
E. OTHER CRIMINAL ACTS
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS
a. Acts Involving to Theft
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did unlawfully appropriate the property of the DeKalb County School System,
with the intent to deprive said owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitute
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Acts Involving Theft
134 Illegal purchase of his county-issued car.
135 Authorizing payment of TONY POPE’s legal bill.
136 Paying for a hotel room at The Lucayan in the Bahamas for a personal vacation.
137 Paying for a hotel room with his county P-card at The Ritz Carlton in Reynolds
Plantation for personal activity with a female employee which was not
authorized and not related to DCSD business.
110
b. False Statements, O.C.G.A. §16-10-20
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did knowingly and willfully conceal a material fact, from Investigator W.C. Nix,
a matter within the jurisdiction of the Dekalb County District Attorney’s Office, a
political subdivision of the State of Georgia, as detailed below and which constitute
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xv).
Act Description
138 By denying that PAT POPE was blackmailing or had blackmailed him.
139 By concealing the fact that in 2007, TONY POPE approached URS, a project
management company, and represented that URS would win a contract with
DCSD if they partnered with him in a joint venture.
140 By falsely stating he was not aware that PAT POPE was going to purchase her
DCSD Ford Explorer prior to the purchase when he, in fact, ordered that the
purchase be expedited.
111
c. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did unlawfully as
an employee of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity, accept a thing
of value, to wit: tickets, from GUDE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC. by inducing the
reasonable belief that the tickets would influence his performance to perform any official
action, to wit: the awarding and maintenance of contracts by the DeKalb County School
System, as detailed below, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§16-14-3(9)(A)(xiii).
Act Gifts Demanded and Received
141 Tickets to the 2008 Atlanta Mayor’s Ball valued at $5000.00 paid on December
10, 2007
112
d. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent
of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in any one
year period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal
program, did corruptly accept a thing of value of Five Thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or
more from a person, intending to be influenced in connection with the business of
DeKalb County School System, and which is an act of bribery chargeable under the laws
of the United States punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and which
constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Gifts Demanded and Received
142 Tickets to the 2008 Atlanta Mayor’s Ball valued at $5000.00 paid on December
10, 2007
113
e. Influencing a Witness, O.C.G.A. §16-10-93
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did unlawfully
engage in misleading conduct, with the intent to hinder communication to a prosecuting
attorney, information relating to the commission of a criminal offense as detailed below,
which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3(9)(A)(xiv).
Act Description
143 Ordering the Director of Internal Affairs, as the recipient of subpoenas
investigating the actions of PAT POPE, to forward those subpoenas to PAT
POPE as the person to respond to those subpoenas
144 By concealing the fact from District Attorney Investigator Clay Nix when
questioned, that TONY POPE approached URS, a project management company,
and represented that URS would win a contract with DCSD if they partnered with
him in a joint venture
114
f. Influencing a Witness, O.C.G.A. §16-10-93
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did unlawfully
engage in misleading conduct, with the intent to induce another person to withhold
testimony from an official proceeding as detailed below, which constitute racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3(9)(A)(xiv).
Act Description
145 By contacting Chief Assistant District Attorney Don Geary an attempting to
induce him to stop the investigation into the school system until after the
completion of a certain civil lawsuit.
115
g. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. §16-10-94
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the County
of DeKalb, with the intent to unlawfully obstruct the prosecution by the DeKalb District
Attorney’s Office, did conceal the evidence detailed below, production of which was
called for by a subpoena served on DCSD, and by ordering the recipient of the subpoena
to forward it to a target of the investigation PAT POPE for handling, which constitutes
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xvi).
Act Items Requested by Subpoena from DCSD and concealed by PAT
POPE
146 From Columbia
All bid submissions for Additions and HVAC projects; Original bid tabs
for Additions and HVAC projects
Original bid tabs for Additions and HVAC projects
All Department of Education correspondence
All payment records and pay applications
All pre-bid documents in reference to the A/E scope of work and
construction scope of work
The Original contract with A. Vincent Pope and Associates; and, Non-
collusion affidavits
From McNair Cluster Elementary
Complete RFP responses by C.D. MOODY and NIX-FOWLER
BAFO responses by C.D. MOODY and NIX-FOWLER
Original evaluations of RFP interviews
Contract and correspondence with BROWN DESIGN GROUP
All meeting minutes of the Board regarding McNair
From MIC
All evaluation/tally sheets for MIC #1
All handwritten evaluation sheets for MIC #2
All meeting minutes
Offeror form for Hogan Construction for MIC #2
116
BAFO form for Hogan Construction for MIC #2
All sealed fee proposals
Arabia Mountain
All contracts
All correspondence
All change orders with backup documentation
All payment applications and payment records
All original pre-proposal documents, RFP responses, and evaluation/tally
sheets
.
117
2. PAT POPE
a. Acts Relating to Theft
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did engage in the below listed acts involving theft which are punishable by imprisonment
of more than a year, and which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-
14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Act Acts Relating to Theft
147 Submitting paperwork and a check to purchase of county vehicle for her benefit
contrary to law
118
b. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb, did
unlawfully as an employee of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity,
directly and indirectly solicited a thing of value, to wit: tickets, from GUDE MANAGEMENT
by inducing the reasonable belief that the tickets would influence his performance to
perform any official action, to wit: the awarding and maintenance of contracts by the
DeKalb County School System, as detailed below, which constitute racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3(9)(A)(xiii).
Act Gifts Demanded and Received
148 Tickets to the Atlanta Falcons valued at $3391.25 for her and TONY POPE
149 Four (4) Tickets to the 2007 Final Four Tournament valued at $18,622.00 for her
and TONY POPE purchased on February 14, 2007 and March 28, 2007
150 Numerous Tickets to the Fox Theater valued $920.00 for her and TONY POPE.
151 Multiple Tickets to the 2008 Atlanta Mayor’s Ball for her, TONY POPE, and
CRAWFORD LEWIS valued at $5000.00 paid on December 10, 2007
152 Tickets to Atlanta Falcon’s football in 2008 valued at $1580.00
153 Tickets to Atlanta Falcon’s football in 2009 valued at $3536.00
119
c. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent of the
DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in any one year
period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program,
did corruptly accept a thing of value of Five Thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more from
a person, intending to be influenced in connection with the business of DeKalb County
School System, and which is an act of bribery chargeable under the laws of the United
States punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and which constitute
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Gifts Demanded and Received
154 Four (4) Tickets to the 2007 Final Four Tournament valued at $18,622.00 25 for
PAT POPE from GUDE MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC.
155 Six (6) tickets for four (4) days to the 2008 Masters totaling Thirty-Five
Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($35,400.00) from TURNER CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY for PAT POPE
120
d. Influencing a Witness, O.C.G.A. §16-10-93
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did unlawfully engage in
misleading conduct toward another person, with the intent to hinder the communication
to prosecuting attorney, information relating to the commission of a criminal offense as
detailed below, which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-
3(9)(A)(xiv).
Act DCSD Items Requested in a Subpoena from Investigator Clay Nix
and concealed by PAT POPE
156 From Columbia
All bid submissions for Additions and HVAC projects; Original bid tabs
for Additions and HVAC projects
Original bid tabs for Additions and HVAC projects
All Department of Education correspondence
All payment records and pay applications
All pre-bid documents in reference to the A/E scope of work and
construction scope of work
The Original contract with A. Vincent Pope and Associates; and, Non-
collusion affidavits
From McNair Cluster Elementary
Complete RFP responses by C.D. MOODY and NIX-FOWLER
BAFO responses by C.D. MOODY and NIX-FOWLER
Original evaluations of RFP interviews
Contract and correspondence with BROWN DESIGN GROUP
All meeting minutes of the Board regarding McNair
From MIC
All evaluation/tally sheets for MIC #1
All handwritten evaluation sheets for MIC #2
All meeting minutes
Offeror form for Hogan Construction for MIC #2
BAFO form for Hogan Construction for MIC #2
All sealed fee proposals
121
Arabia Mountain
All contracts
All correspondence
All change orders with backup documentation
All payment applications and payment records
All original pre-proposal documents, RFP responses, and evaluation/tally
sheets
122
e. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. §16-10-94
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
with the intent to unlawfully obstruct the prosecution by the DeKalb District Attorney’s
Office of herself and the other defendants, did conceal the evidence detailed below,
production of which was called for by a subpoena served on DCSD and forwarded to
PAT POPE, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3
(9)(A)(xvi).
Act DCSD Items Requested in a Subpoena from Investigator Clay Nix
and concealed by PAT POPE
157 From Columbia
All bid submissions for Additions and HVAC projects; Original bid tabs
for Additions and HVAC projects
Original bid tabs for Additions and HVAC projects
All Department of Education correspondence
All payment records and pay applications
All pre-bid documents in reference to the A/E scope of work and
construction scope of work
The Original contract with A. Vincent Pope and Associates; and, Non-
collusion affidavits
From McNair Cluster Elementary
Complete RFP responses by C.D. MOODY and NIX-FOWLER
BAFO responses by C.D. MOODY and NIX-FOWLER
Original evaluations of RFP interviews
Contract and correspondence with BROWN DESIGN GROUP
All meeting minutes of the Board regarding McNair
From MIC
All evaluation/tally sheets for MIC #1
All handwritten evaluation sheets for MIC #2
All meeting minutes
Offeror form for Hogan Construction for MIC #2
BAFO form for Hogan Construction for MIC #2
All sealed fee proposals
123
Arabia Mountain
All contracts
All correspondence
All change orders with backup documentation
All payment applications and payment records
All original pre-proposal documents, RFP responses, and evaluation/tally
sheets
124
3. TONY POPE
a. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. §16-10-94
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
with the intent to obstruct the prosecution by the DeKalb District Attorney’s Office of
himself and the other defendants, did conceal the evidence detailed below, production of
which was called for by a subpoena served on him, which constitutes racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xvi).
Act DCSD Items Requested in a Subpoena from Investigator Clay Nix
and concealed by TONY POPE
158 not producing any correspondence for the time period of August/September 2008-
March 2009
not producing any pay applications, executed Change Orders, sketches, drawings,
or proposals
125
COUNT 2
The GRAND JURORS aforesaid, in the name of and on behalf of the citizens of the State
of Georgia, charge and accuse
CRAWFORD LEWIS , and
PATRICIA REID, a/k/a PAT POPE,
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE a/k/a TONY POPE,
individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime, with the offense
of
VIOLATION OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT ~ ACQUIRING PROPERTY THROUGH A PATTERN
OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY, in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-14-4(a), for the said
accused persons, in the County of DeKalb and State of Georgia, between the 10th day of
October, 2005, and the 5th day of March, 2010, did unlawfully acquire, directly and
indirectly, control of money and other personal property through the pattern of
racketeering activity alleged in Count One above and incorporated herein by reference,
contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
DEKALB SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT D. JAMES, District Attorney
126
COUNT 3
The GRAND JURORS aforesaid, in the name of and on behalf of the citizens of the State
of Georgia, charge and accuse
CRAWFORD LEWIS , and
PATRICIA REID, a/k/a PAT POPE, and
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE a/k/a TONY POPE,
individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime, with the offense
of
VIOLATION OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT ~ CONSPIRACY TO CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATE
IN AN ENTERPRISE THROUGH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING
ACTIVITY for that the said accused, in the State of Georgia and County of DeKalb,
between the 10th day of October, 2005, and the 5th day of March, 2010, did
unlawfully conspire and endeavor to conduct and participate in an enterprise, to wit:
DeKalb County School System, through the pattern of racketeering activity alleged in
Count I above and incorporated herein by reference,
contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
DEKALB SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT D. JAMES, District Attorney
127
COUNT 4
The GRAND JURORS aforesaid, in the name of and on behalf of the citizens of the State
of Georgia, charge and accuse
CRAWFORD LEWIS,
PATRICIA REID, a/k/a PAT POPE, and
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE a/k/a TONY POPE,
individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime, with the offense
of
VIOLATION OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT ~ CONSPIRACY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY
THROUGH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY for that the said
accused, in the State of Georgia and County of DeKalb, between the 10th day of
October, 2005, and the 5th day of March, 2010, did unlawfully conspire and endeavor
to acquire and maintain, directly and indirectly, an interest in and control money and of
personal property, through the pattern of racketeering activity alleged in Count I above
and incorporated herein by reference
contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
DEKALB SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT D. JAMES, District Attorney
128
COUNT 5
The GRAND JURORS aforesaid, in the name of and on behalf of the citizens of the State
of Georgia, charge and accuse
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and
PATRICIA REID a/k/a PAT POPE,
individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime,
with the offense of THEFT BY TAKING BY A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE in
violation of O.C.G.A. 16-8-2 for the said accused person, in the County of DeKalb and
State of Georgia, between the 26th day of November, 2008, and the 10th day of
March, 2010, the exact date of the offense being unknown to the Grand Jury, did
unlawfully take money and property, enumerated in Count 1 above and incorporated
herein by reference, the property of DeKalb County School System, from DeKalb County
School System, with the intention of depriving said owner of said property, in breach of
the accused's duty as such employee,
contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
DEKALB SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT D. JAMES, District Attorney
129
COUNT 6
The GRAND JURORS aforesaid, in the name of and on behalf of the citizens of the State
of Georgia, charge and accuse
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and
PATRICIA REID a/k/a PAT POPE,
individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime,
with the offense of BRIBERY in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-2 for the said accused
person, in the County of DeKalb and State of Georgia, between the 10th day of
October, 2005, and the 10th day of March, 2010, the exact date of the offense being
unknown to the Grand Jury, enumerated predicate act 131 and 132 Count 1 above and
incorporated herein by reference, being employees of the DeKalb County School System,
an agency of the State of Georgia, did unlawfully accept tickets to sporting events, things
of value, by inducing the reasonable belief that the giving of said thing would influence
the awarding of contracts by the DeKalb County School System, an official action,
contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
DEKALB SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT D. JAMES, District Attorney
130
EXHIBIT LIST
Ex DESCRIPTION
A Board Policy GAJ
COLUMBIA PROJECT
B A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.’s architectural contract for Columbia
Project
C1 DCSD letter dated 6/6/05 to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. regarding
Change Order #1 to its contract
C2 Letter PAT POPE prepared dated 6/16/2005 on behalf of A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. regarding Change Order #1
D Letter from A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. dated March 9, 2006 to
DCSD officially requesting an increase in fixed architectural fees
E Change Order #2 to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for Columbia Project
($176,690) containing signatures of CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
F TONY POPE’s Letter to DCSD, dated 7/27/06 with a copy to PAT POPE
requesting an increase to his architectural fees (leading to CO3)
G Change Order #3 for Columbia to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for
($268,766.54) containing signatures of CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT
POPE
H MEMORANDUM dated 4/24/07 from TONY POPE to DCSD proposing an
“extension” to MERIT’S HVAC and Replacements Contract
I Change Order #7 Agenda Item with supporting documents submitted by PAT
POPE to the Board on June 11, 2007, requesting authority to extend Merit’s
HVAC construction contract in the amount of $1,635,976.00
J Change Order #7 for Columbia HVAC issued to MERIT ON 6/12/07 for
$268,766.54 containing signatures of CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
labeled as being related to DCSD project number 421-104
K Agenda Item submitted by PAT POPE to the Board on 8/6/07 and 8/13/07 to
Award a Deferred SPLOST II Contract to MERIT
L1 Notice of Award from PAT POPE to MERIT of Deferred SPLOST II Contract
L2 Deferred SPLOST II contract with MERIT containing signatures of
CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
M1 Letter dated 5/16/08 from State DOE that it due to DCSD’ failure to advertise
the new scope of work, in violation of the Competitive Award Process in giving
this contract to MERIT, the state of Georgia would not approve the construction
documents
M2 Letter dated 9/30/08 from State DOE that it would not reimburse DCSD
$1,000,000 because of DCSD’ failure to advertise the new scope of work, in
violation of the Competitive Award Process
N Letter dated 4/23/08 from PAT POPE to State DOE falsely representing that
the DCSD construction counsel had approved her actions of not advertising the
new scope of work and failing to place the project out for bid or RFP
O1 Letter dated 3/20/07 labeled “RFP for Architectural Services” from PAT POPE
to TONY POPE to provide a proposal for the architectural work related to the
131
Deferred SPLOST II work
O2 Letter dated 5/1/07 from TONY POPE responding to PAT POPE’s
solicitation stating his fee would be $625,000.00
P Addendum #1 dated 5/1/07
Q Addendum #2 dated 12/13/07
McNAIR PROJECT
R McNair Project Notice of Award
S Stop Work Order dated 1/5/2006 from DCSD to BDG with PAT POPE cc’d
T Letter dated 1/17/2006 CRAWFORD LEWIS wrote to Audra Brown-Cooper
of BDG terminating the A/E Services Contract
U Letter re: DCSD payment of $105,532 for work already completed
V RFP for McNair changed to Design-Build
W Addendum #3 to the McNair RFP changing initial evaluation criteria
X1-X5 DCSD request for all offerors to submit their BAFO on McNair
Y C.D. MOODY’s initial offer for $12,484,000
Z C.D. MOODY’s 1st BAFO
AA NIX-FOWLER’S BAFO
BB1-
BB11
TONY POPE’s pre-award e-mails
CC TONY POPE’s post-award email
MIC PROJECT
DD Contract CDH signed and returned which PAT POPE/DCSD did not sign
EE DCSD email request to THE CHAMPION to place an advertisement soliciting
RFP’s for this MIC project using the Design-Build delivery method
FF The actual RFP announcing a mandatory pre-proposal conference for all
potential offerors to be held on September 11, 2007
GG Sign-in sheet for 9/11/07 meeting showing representatives of A. VINCENT POPE
& ASSOCIATES, INC. present
HH Minutes of 9/11/07 Board meeting clearly documenting DCSD’ intention to
award a Design-Build contract for the renovation or “build out” of the entire
MIC structure with the DECA portion to be completed first
II Email: TONY POPE emailed Amy Sue Mann PAT POPE, and MERIT
CONSTRUCTION on 9/9/2007 asking for a “request of information” on MIC
project
JJ Follow-up email from TONY POPE requesting clarification on behalf of MERIT
Design team
KK DCSD’ addendum to the RFP request 9/24/07 scheduling a 2nd
mandatory pre-
proposal conference on 10/4/07
LL Minutes of Board meeting reiterating the intention of DCSD to award one
contract that would encompass all needed design and construction services to
renovate or “build out” the entire MIC structure
MM Proposal and Interview Tally Sheets
NN1-
NN3
Faxes: PAT POPE, faxed requests to all offerors for BAFO’S to negotiate the
BAFO price between the remaining companies for the MIC project
OO HOGAN’S BAFO
132
PP DCSD Notice of AWARD to HOGAN solely for the build-out of the DECA
portion of the MIC structure
QQ AGENDA ITEM: contract award of the DECA portion of the MIC project to
the Board
RR DCSD Advertisement - advertisement for a Design-Build project for the
remainder of the MIC structure
SS Sign-in sheet listing attendees at pre-proposal conference including
representatives from NIX-FOWLER CONSTRUCTION, HOGAN, and A. VINCENT
POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TT DCSD AWARD of the MIC project in April of 2008 to the NIX-FOWLER and
A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. team, minus the construction related to
DECA.
UU PAT POPE issued a memo dated 3/26/08 to Amy Sue Mann (DCSD) falsely
representing that legal counsel had reviewed the issue and there was no conflict
VV Agenda Item for PAT POPE’s presentation of the MIC II project to the Board
WW Contract for MIC II for $17,646,000.00 contained a design fee of 4.85% which
was paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ($855,831.00)
ARABIA Project
XX Forged tally sheets inaccurately scoring TURNER higher in the category of
Approach, during the selection time
OTHER ACTS
VV Hawks tickets and email directions from Board Counsel SUTHERLAND.
VV1 Correspondence re Falcons tickets
YY CRAWFORD LEWIS check purchasing his car 1 year old car for $5,766.25
ZZ Receipt: Cost of new tires on LEWIS’ car installed immediately before
purchase
AAA Receipt: Cost of repairs on LEWIS’ car immediately before purchase
BBB Check and Title related to PAT POPE purchase of 2005 Explorer for $5,422.50
CCC Documents related to cost of repairs on POPE’s car immediately before
purchase ($1,342.49)
DDD CRAWFORD LEWIS’ Purchase-Card receipt showing purchase of lodging
The Lucayan
EEE CRAWFORD LEWIS’ Purchase-Card receipt showing purchase of lodging
The Ritz Carlton at Reynolds Plantation
FFF Handwritten and typed Chief of Staff Notes from 12-22-2008 meeting with
LEWIS and DCSD counsel
GGG Handwritten and typed Chief of Staff Notes from 1-14-2009 meeting with
LEWIS and DCSD counsel
HHH New Employee Contract and Pay Raise authorized by CRAWFORD LEWIS
for PAT POPE
III Invoice and check for Tony Pope’s legal fees
JJJ Letter dated 11-9-2009 from SAB attorney Bill Wildman to Crawford Lewis