No criminal charges to be sought against former county veterans benefit specialist

While an investigation did not find enough to charge former county veterans benefit specialist Nikki Sherman with a crime, Taylor County Sheriff Larry Woebbeking’s reports, obtained through an open record’s request, detail efforts he said worked to undermine the operation of the county veterans service office.

On May 22, Sherman resigned from the county without advanced notice when she did not come into work as scheduled that Monday morning. The night before (Sunday, May 21) she publicly announced her resignation in the form of an email sent to community members, Veterans Service office staff from surrounding counties, and local media.

Sheriff Woebbeking became involved weeks later when he was contacted by an individual. The name of the individual who requested the investigation is typically a matter of open record as part of the completed report. On Wednesday afternoon, Woebbeking said he received a request from the person who made the initial investigation request for him to redact the report and not release the name. According to Woebbeking there is a process he must go through in order to determine if the name should be redacted from the report. The Star News had received an unredacted report prior to the request and is cooperating in not releasing the name pending the review process.

According to Woebbeking’s report on Thursday, June 22 he was asked to contact someone familiar with the situation in the Veterans Service Office. Woebbeking stated the individual expressed concern to him about shredding of documents and mishandling of county computers.

“[The individual] felt strongly that law enforcement needed to be involved and took it upon [themself] to make contact with me,” Woebbeking stated in his report.

The report continued with Woebbeking’s contacting Graff and being told they were not sure of the best route and that the county had contacted its insurance company for its perspective. Graff told Woebbeking she felt there were concerns violations may have occurred.

“[Graff] acknowledges it may have been better to get law enforcement on board right away and was happy for the involvement now,” Woebbeking stated.

The investigation continued with Woebbeking meeting on June 26 at 3 p.m. with attorney Graff and Human Resources Director Nicole Hager in the conference room of the Taylor County Sheriff’s Office.

Woebbeking’s report states: “Graff and Hager informed me that on May 22, 2023, Sheila Wundrow, the Veterans Service Officer, came into the Veterans Administration Office and found it in disarray. The computer monitors were laying on their sides and were face down.

Several file drawers were found open and empty. Other items were missing, such as a table, microwave, and some other misc. items. It was unknown the ownership of those missing items. I was informed that Nikki Sherman indicated those items belonged to her but there is no substantial way to provide [proof] of ownership.

Also found on the floor in the office were two (2) large bags of shredded material.

Upon finding the office in disarray, Sheila Wundrow went to the Human Resources Director’s office to report it. The shredded garbage bags were preserved by the H.R. Director. By looking at the bags, there is no visual way to determine what type of documents were shredded. I was informed that on behalf of the County, the H.R. Director did reach out to Nikki Sherman to ask her what was shredded.

In an email response dated May 25, 2023, Nikki stated the shredded documents were medical records and death certificates and other documents needed for claims. She went on to say the claims were submitted and uploaded to ‘vet pro,’ once up-loaded Nikki then shredded all the paper documents needed to make these claims. In her written reply, she stated the shredding was for HIPAA reasons.

Also, in her reply, she stated the Veterans [Office] Facebook page was deactivated and was created in 2015. She did not explain why she had the right to deactivate a County Facebook page. She just stated it was created in 2015 prior to any County policies. A copy of that email is in the reports for more detailed information.

H.R. Director indicated the County is still missing a VIP card reader. In a response via her attorney, Nikki stated she returned the reader, but it has never been returned at this point. It should also be noted that on a County owned computer used by [Sherman], Sheila Wundrow found 450 files that had not quite been deleted. There was a prompt message asking are you sure you want to delete. That computer was preserved through IT. . . . There is concern on the County’s behalf that Nikki Sherman improperly handled, veterans’ documents, also in terms of the preservation requirements of documents.”

On June 27, Woebbeking made phone contact with former veteran’s service office Dan Judnic at his home.

The report states: “I informed Dan I was looking into matters that involved Nikki Sherman’s time in the Veterans Administration Office. I asked him if I could ask him a few questions that would help determine if any possible illegal activity occurred that would require me to ask an outside agency to investigate.

He stated he would. I asked him if he could explain what ‘vet pro’ was. Judnic informed me that it was a tool they used to help file forms. He stated it was a very secure network that helps them submit federal forms for veterans’ health care and other reasons.

He stated many documents are put into ‘vet pro,’ from discharge papers to medical records to health appointments. He stated almost anything that requires a veteran to get the proper help they need; they would put into ‘vet pro.’ He stated again it is a very secure network that they use on a regular basis.

The report of the interview continues: “He stated that he did not have the credentials to use it in the short time

See MISSING on page 13 he was in the office (five (5) months). During that time, he did not obtain the proper credentials to use ‘vet pro’ but Nikki Sherman did. I asked, during his time in the office, what was the typical practice regarding documentation once it was entered into ‘vet pro’, what would they do with the paper or hard copies?

He stated typically, they would shred any remaining paperwork after being entered into ‘vet pro’ because it was very secure and very easy to get a copy back out. He stated if a veteran needed a copy of discharge papers or whatever else was in ‘vet pro’, you could simply enter into the system and reprint the form. He stated most items were shredded on a regular basis. He said sometimes, they would ask the medical facility or the veteran personally if they wanted a copy of a specific document back and if not, the common practice was to shred it.

I asked him what policy, procedure, or law was that they were following for this practice or if this practice was just an internal one, they did because they felt it was ‘best’ practice. Judnic informed me was not aware of a specific law requiring the shredding of these documents. He stated that he did not feel they were following a law or statute, they were just following “best” practice. I asked him if that was an internal policy that he and Nikki created during his time or if it had been occurring prior to his employment. Judnic informed me it was a practice that was occurring prior to his employment and just continued while he worked there. Again, he stated they (documents) are HIPAA sensitive and they felt ‘best’ practice would be to typically shred them once they were put into ‘vet pro.’

In summary, they did shred documents after they were entered into ‘vet pro’, it was a practice that was being done prior to Judnic’s employment, he continued to follow suit, and he is not aware of a specific law requiring it.”

The investigation continued and on the morning of July 6, Woebbeking met with attorney Graff, Wundrow, and Hager in the courthouse conference room with the purpose to view the more than 400 documents recovered from the laptop Sherman had attempted to delete at the time of her departure from the county.

Woebbeking’s report states: “A lengthy amount of time was used to view various documents at random to determine if they were important documents. If a document considered sensitive or important was located, it was cross-checked to see if it was entered into the ‘vet pro’ system before deletion. Documents I observed ranged anywhere from veterans’ paperwork for claims or veterans seeking other resources. Many of these documents did contain social numbers and other private information. Some other documents I observed were Nikki Sherman’s nonwork related issues that she downloaded onto the work computer. The sensitive documents located were cross-checked with ‘vet pro’ and they had been entered. Also present were some personal typed communications between her and another employee of Taylor County.

Many deleted documents were operational in that they were designed to be helpful in guiding a new Veterans Service employee on how to do certain tasks of the veteran’s service office. There were directions and outlines indicating how to provide certain services or do certain tasks. In addition, there were deleted documents dated far prior to her hire date of 2021. Many of these documents dated back to 2017 and other years. It would appear that the motivation or the purpose of the deletion of every document contained on that County owned computer was designed to hamper the function of the veteran’s service office.

Not only the documents that would normally be entered into ‘vet pro’ were deleted but other documents that would help the Veterans Service Office personnel navigate the job, were deleted. There seemed no reason for the mass deletion of the entirety of the computer other than to hamper the day-to-day functions of the veteran’s service office and make it difficult for the new Veterans Services Officer to do her job.”

On the afternoon of July 7, Woebbeking again made phone contact with Judnic.

The report states: “I asked him if he knew anything about an operational binder or a binder that he turned into the office or if this meant anything to him and he said yes. He believed what I was talking about was a continuity binder. It was a directional binder that would help a employee navigate the resources of the office and how to perform certain duties. He stated that he received it from Shelley Shaw and believes it was originally created by Jeff Hein, a previous Veterans [Service] Officer. I informed him that it was my understanding that he turned it back into the County and informed the County he didn’t realize he had it and was returning it. I asked him if it would be fair for me to say that was not actually the truth. I informed him that I thought he likely received it from Nikki and then turned it in as if he had it. I asked him if that was accurate. He informed me that was accurate. He stated that Nikki had been moving and she had contacted him and that she accidentally took it home with her personal belongings. He felt it was an honest mistake on Nikki’s part and not intentional. He stated that they agreed mutually he would keep her name out of it so she would not get in trouble with the County, and he would just say he had it all along. He stated that he knew it was not an honest answer at the time but again he felt it was an honest mistake on Nikki’s part. They both felt it would be easier if he just kept her name out of it and turn it in himself.

I asked him about the ‘vet pro’ access. I informed him that in doing some research, it was clear that he did access and use ‘vet pro’ and during our earlier conversation, he led me to believe that he did not. He informed me he didn’t have authorization to use the ‘PIV card.’ He did however use ‘vet pro’ and do simple downloads and retrievals. He did not have authorizations to submit certain forms because he did not have a ‘PIV card.’ But he did access ‘vet pro’ to help Nikki shorten the time it would take to submit and retrieve documents from ‘vet pro’ He did say that he did that on a regular basis. He again clarified that he did not have authorizations or training for the ‘PIV card”.

I asked Dan if he contacted Nikki about this investigation. I informed him that I assumed he did, and he concurred he contacted Nikki and they talked about it.

He also informed me he talked to her again just last night, July 6th. I informed him that she is welcome to contact me if she would like to talk and that I don’t have any issues with that. He stated he will inform her of my invitation for her to call me if she wishes to do so.

I also informed him that my investigation does not have anything to do with county employment issues. My only function at this point is to determine if a violation of law occurred. I made it clear to Dan that I have no authorization nor interest in looking at this from an employment perspective. Dan stated that he understood, and he informed me that while doing some research, he thought the deletion of documents by Nikki was in accordance with State Statute. I informed him I would be doing research on any applicable State Statutes moving forward.”

On July 10, 2023, Woebbeking met with Taylor County District Attorney Kristi Tlusty in her office to brief her on his preliminary findings and to determine if the district attorney felt there had been a violation of a law.

The report states: “During my conversation with DA Tlusty, she referenced State Statute 943.70(2), which is a computer crime statute with reference offenses against computer data and programs. The statute indicates that whoever willfully knowingly and without authorization may be penalized for certain acts. In short, the statute describes penalties for whoever modifies data or computer programs or supporting documentation, whoever destroys data or computer programs or supporting documentation, whoever intentionally causes an interruption in service by submitting a message or multi messages to a computer and lists varying different computer crimes. The specific part of that statute DA Tlusty and myself discussed was reference destroying data, computer programs or supporting documentation. In this case, Nikki Sherman clearly shredded many documents and attempted a mass computer deletion, but I did not find any evidence that would indicate that she did not copy the necessary documents into ‘vet pro.’ It appears by shredding and destroying documents, attempting to delete the entirety of her assigned county computer it would suggest there was no reason for it other than to hamper the veteran’s administration office. After discussion with DA Tlusty, it was determined Nikki’s actions as it applies to this statute would not rise to the level of prosecution. In summary, my preliminary investigation did not yield any significant illegal findings that would warrant an outside agency investigation into Nikki Sherman’s conduct in reference to the shredding of documents and the deletion of data from her assigned county computer.” “There seemed no reason for the mass deletion of the entirety of the computer other than to hamper the day-to-day functions of the veteran’s service office and make it difficult for the new Veterans Services Officer to do her job.”

— Sheriff Larry Woebbeking,