Rachel Ondrik is either a very lucky lady, or about to become an important witness against one of the biggest agencies of the US government.
Ondrik was an investigator for the Census Bureau until she and her work partner, Kirk Yamatani, were caught fudging expense reports.
Ondrik and Yamatani’s actions brought a public rebuke from the Commerce Department’s inspector general, Todd Zinser, who said a year ago that the charges against the two were the “result of significant efforts by the US Attorney’s Office, the FBI and my office to hold law enforcement agents accountable for years of criminal misconduct.”
So while the money involved wasn’t big, the case was important enough to command the resources of three government agencies. Case closed, you would have thought.
But that announcement on April 30, 2013, was the last time this case was logical or clear-cut. And while there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why the Ondrik/Yamatani case suddenly became so opaque, nobody is offering one.
Zinser’s comment was part of an announcement about a plea agreement.
Ondrik, 35, and Yamatani, 38, agreed to probation and a fine of $28,000 each. They also had to pay $14,000 in restitution to the government.
Basically, the two had filed false time cards and said they were in places when they really weren’t. They also claimed relocation expenses when they transferred from the Census Bureau’s Atlanta office to Washington, DC.
This is where the story would have ended — with a nice deal for the two and a happy set of investigators — except that a federal magistrate named Charles B. Day turned down the plea deal.
Instead, he sentenced Ondrik and Yamatani to eight months in prison even though prosecutors hadn’t asked for that punishment.
Ondrik and Yamatani appealed and a new trial was set for mid-March, but it never took place. I figured a new plea deal was in the works, and I was right.
Ondrik did plead guilty to what is called a superseding indictment.
But instead of pleading guilty to nearly two dozen fraud charges — teleworking when she wasn’t allowed is the way the government described it — the new indictment mentioned only one fraud: falsely claiming to have worked from Feb. 22 to Feb. 25, 2011, for the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology. Yamatani was not mentioned in the new deal.
If a new federal judge accepts this deal, Ondrik will get time already served, a $20,000 fine and will also pay $9,598.66 in restitution.
Rounding it off, Ondrik got a $12,400 cut from the original $42,000 penalty. Justice at a discount!
Maybe prosecutors were just feeling generous when they cut Ondrik’s new deal. But what happened next seemed to puzzle even the clerks involved in the case as well as outside lawyers I consulted.
A new federal judge, Peter Messitte, who will have to rule on this new plea deal, rejected Ondrik’s appeal of the original charges. “Defendant Rachel Ondrik’s appeal is denied,” said the ruling signed by Messitte on May 16 — seven days after the new plea deal was announced.
So without an explanation from anyone in the know, it looks as if Ondrik is still facing the original charges that sent her to jail while also pleading guilty to the new accusations.
Now I’ll get to what prized information Ondrik may know.
By now readers should be familiar with the name Julius Buckmon, the enumerator for the Census Bureau who was caught faking surveys and who alleged that higher-ups told him to do so.
Buckmon worked for supervisors headquartered in Philly but his territory was Washington, DC.
An investigation by Zinser confirmed that Buckmon was, indeed, faking surveys, and the IG suggested reforms to keep it from happening again.
But Zinzer said Buckmon’s allegations about higher-ups were untrue.
In 2010, Ondrik was supposed to investigate Buckmon and his allegations against superiors.
A source tells me that Ondrik did conduct interviews, including one with Buckmon. But she was allegedly casual about it all and spoke with witnesses while sipping coffee in Washington, DC. I’m told Ondrik didn’t even take notes.
But Ondrik apparently billed for trips to Philadelphia. And I hear that Ondrik said that’s where the interview with Buckmon took place.
This would just be another example of voucher fraud if it weren’t for the fact that Ondrik apparently did make trips to Philly when she said she did.
The only thing inaccurate was that Ondrik apparently didn’t speak with Buckmon while there — he was back in Washington.
So whom did Ondrik meet in Philly? Did she meet with Buckmon’s superiors to devise a cover-up of those who ordered his deeds? Or did she feel like visiting the Liberty Bell?
As I’ve told readers before, Congress is looking into the bad habits of the Census Bureau and at least one US Attorney may also be.
Let’s see if Ondrik resurfaces as a witness.