CONFLICT OF INTEREST: PART TWO
“IT’S A MESS OUT THERE”

By Michael Swann

The series of emails between the IBF and the ABC might well be the smoking gun that Armando Garcia possibly broke Federal law, Article 6308 of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 which covers conflicts of interest. In addition, the fact that his payment came through Duane Ford indicates a desire to avoid a paper trail, at least in that particular case.

There is no dispute that Ford’s payments were not in violation. However he might possibly be guilty of collusion in the matter. It should also be noted that Ford, from Nevada, has officiated in no less than three title fights in California in the past year. Lueckenhoff’s emails clearly indicate that his expenses were covered by the ABC. However, he too, as is the case with Ford, had to be fully knowledgeable of Garcia’s violation. The emails show premeditation in the matter.

In a copy of the ABC Financial Report for the fiscal year ending July 5, 2006, obtained for the purpose of this article, only $455 is listed for travel expenses for the year, about the cost of a limo for one night. That seems to be a rather meager amount considering the number of certifications performed during that period. Who supplied the rest of the money for the ABC travel costs?

Referee and Judges Seminar revenues was listed as $3671, expenses $3240. Another oddity - perhaps unimportant - the annual phone bill was reported as only $485. Aren’t these people issued cell phones?

After securing the smoking gun email evidence, I sought additional information. One prominent boxing source told me that, “They’ve got a racket going. It looks like Lueckenhoff is going to be president for life. They have a clique. I know that for a fact. It’s no secret. The collusion with the check shows that [Garcia] is hiding something.”

Not everyone proved to be so candid.

One person who was referred to me as a person with a great deal of information took my initial greeting and introduction and said, “I know where your questions are going and I don’t want to be involved in that. It’s a mess out there.” This was before I had the opportunity to ask the first question.

One commission that had been given the certification seminar was called in an attempt to get information on the payments. A good friend, who has been a longtime source, sought to obtain the information. He was stopped cold when it was discovered that he was getting the information for Michael Swann.

“He’s an investigative reporter,” they said according to my source. “We don’t talk to people like that.”

I’ve written a few investigative pieces, but I hardly think that I am an investigative reporter. Two things come to mind here - they are not regular readers and - just where did they get that idea?

The North Carolina commission was called on Friday, August 10, 2007 for similar follow up information. After being told that Director Roger Hutchings was unavailable, I called again the following week. By Wednesday, August 15, still unable to reach Hutchings, I informed Sheree, who took my call that it involved a violation of Federal law regarding the ABC certifications.

Hutchings never did call back. However, Armando Garcia did, about a half hour later.

Paraphrasing the conversation from my notes, the conversation went like this:

Garcia: “When I first started I asked the Ethics Attorney in California to clearly review the issue, and I have a legal opinion in writing stating that it is not a conflict, that I am a subject matter expert and I can get paid if I want to, although many times I haven’t. I take my own time as vacation and the training I can’t do, Jay Nady does it.

“When my name comes up I try to go directly to the source despite what the handful of detractors in California or Florida might think. You don’t know me but I operate above board. When I first got here there were some individuals in Florida and California that simply wanted to hurt me and contacted the state that I was doing the training, that I was getting thousands of dollars and so forth and I’m violating the law.

(California) found that it was not in violation of any government code and if I want to I can get paid and I don’t even have to report it on my (Conflict of Interest) form every year.”

Swann: “I have received information that you did receive payment.”

Garcia: “Of course. I was also the man on the grassy knoll. Let’s just say I did get paid. It’s not a violation of the Ali Act and I have a legal opinion from the Ethics Attorney in California who was clearly informed and instructed of every minute detail of my training. I value my job and I wouldn’t do anything like that. The problem is that some people don’t want me here; maybe they don’t want me because I’m Cuban. Little too dark or something, I don’t know.

“I didn’t do any of those things that are inappropriate and if the state had told me don’t do it anymore, I wouldn’t do it. You know how many days and hours of my vacation going back 13 years I’ve taken from my family to do training all over the world? Many, for the love of boxing, but some people can’t stand that.”

Swann: “Who are those people?”

Garcia: “It’s not worth it to discuss it. You’re a smart guy; I know you can figure it out.”

Swann: “I’d like to hear it from you.”

Garcia: “What for? To continue scuttlebutt? As soon as someone raised the issue, I immediately contacted the Ethics Attorney. I immediately hooked them up with the ABC and both of them discussed whatever it is they discussed and they did a thorough search and you will see an excerpt of the legal opinion…I would appreciate it if you contact me if you have anything to discuss about California.

“Let me give you a side note. There’s a lot of people who love and respect me and try to take care of my back and there’s a handful of knuckleheads who do just the opposite. So when they hear things they contact me and give me a head’s up because they know I wouldn’t do anything inappropriate.”

Garcia emailed me an “excerpt from a legal opinion from our State’s Ethics Attorney.” I’m not a lawyer, but I can see flaws in what he sent me. In the first place, it’s sort of a cut and paste reading of California law, and it wouldn’t supercede Federal law anyway. It’s doubtful that whoever prepared it even considered it in context with the Boxing Safety Act. There is no source of the opinion given on the email, other than Garcia’s claim that it is from “our State Ethics Attorney.” It didn’t resolve anything for me. He didn’t even give a name.

Garcia’s legal opinion stated that “Mr. Garcia may accept the honorarium from the Missouri commission or since it is located outside the State of California

“Section 89502 ( c ) of the government code provides that “No member of a state or local government agency shall accept any honorarium from any source if the member or employee would be required to report the receipt of income or gifts from that source on his or her Statement of Economic Interest.”

Government code 82030 defines income in pertinent part as:

“…a payment received , including but not limited to salary, wage, advance…‘income’ other than a gift does not include income received from a source outside the jurisdiction and not doing business with the jurisdiction or not having done business within the jurisdiction during the two years prior to the time any statement or any other action is required…

“Therefore, income, (in this case honoraria), other than gifts received from sources outside the State of California is not considered income within the meaning of the Political Reform Act and therefore need not be reported on the Statement of Economic Interest. Thus, in accordance with government code Section 89502 ( c), Mr. Garcia may receive the honorarium from the Missouri commission, since this organization is not required to be reported on his Economic Interest Form.”

Garcia wrote that this was prepared for a Missouri seminar, but applies to the others also.

I wonder if the IRS is going to be half as understanding as the author of this opinion.

Anita Scurry is the counsel for the California Consumer Affairs Department, which oversees the boxing program in the state. She was said to be honest and non political. I wanted to obtain a copy of Garcia’s Conflict of Interest Statement and I was curious as to the origin of his “legal opinion.” I called her late in the evening of Friday, August 24, 2007.

Scurry was not as helpful as I would have wanted her to be, understandable because she works for the State of California and the state is her client. She stated that she didn’t give legal opinions to non clients and stated that, “I am not at liberty to give you an opinion on that.” She offered little throughout the conversation, seemingly distracted as though she was taking notes on the call. I even offered to show her some evidence that I had acquired but she insisted that she was going on vacation for 2 ½ weeks and wouldn’t be able to read it. A few minutes after our call ended, she called me back, suggesting that I contact Carrie Lopez, the Executive Director of the department.

Did Scurry speak to Lopez following our first call?

I have since placed calls for Lopez, none of which have been returned as of this writing. But before I even had a chance to follow up Scurry’s advice, something truly bizarre transpired. Armando Garcia sent out an email early Monday, August 27. While I was not intended as a recipient, a copy was forwarded to me.

It read:

Subject: Referee training or speaking engagement for your organization

My dear friends,

Going back as early as last year, someone contacted the State of California informing them of a conflict in that while holding my position as Executive Officer, I was also conducting referee training for the ABC. Funny, it had a familiar ring.

I immediately contacted our Ethics Attorney for a legal opinion. He opined that I was an expert in the subject matter and not only could I do the training outside the State of California, but that it would be OK to be paid. As you all know, I seldom have gotten paid and when I did the $250, if you consider taking vacation, time off from work ect., was really meaningless. I did it because I love teaching, love the sport, and value our friendship. Therefore, after that I did some other training sessions.

Now, fast forward to August 2007. It appears that a gentleman from a boxing internet site associated with Armando friendly people (sic) in California has been inquiring about this again and about not only my training for state commissions, but for sanctioning bodies. I have again contacted the Ethics Attorney.

Perhaps not, but my gut feeling is that the state will pass and tell me they’d prefer I no longer did any training at all. This includes speaking engagements.

All of you know my history with my referee training, the Florida situation I had, ect., and now California. Needless to say I am gravely disappointed and a bit frustrated and upset.

I know that there are several training sessions and or speaking engagements on the table right now, but based on this, please have an alternate plan just in case.

I will keep you posted.

Regards,

Since Scurry was on vacation, who spoke to Garcia and prompted that email? No one from the Department of Consumer Affairs returned my calls. I’m finding it difficult to accept that it was a coincidence. Perhaps Armando was correct in saying that people respect him and have his back.

An informed source gave a possible explanation for what Garcia called “the Florida situation.” The source said that while Garcia was officiating a fight in Boynton Beach, Florida, a Spanish fighter came through the ropes in colorful garb and a sombrero.

Garcia leaned through the ropes and said to the commission doctor, Dr. Fields, “Does this guy look like a (bleeping) Puerto Rican or what?”

In another instance Garcia began cursing the then Executive Director and called him, “A (bleeping) drunk.”

Several witnesses were brought in to testify about Garcia’s conduct in a suspension investigation. Garcia was thought to be a bit of a loose cannon, complaining about assignments, criticizing directors and officials, according to our source. Yet he was never suspended, although he was given little duty for months until just before he left for California.

In the investigation, Richard Bertrand of Florida testified for Garcia, changing his original testimony, according to our source. Bertrand had no training but was licensed for one fight in Florida, and did not reapply for his license. A year or so later, Bertrand showed up in California, and was soon officiating big mixed martial arts shows.

Bertrand, along with a Ric Bays, attended a 3 day professional boxing judge, ringside physician and mixed martial arts official training sessions during a visit to California almost a year ago. As part of the boxing judge seminar, they took the ABC judge certification course and written examination and were placed on the ABC certified list.

On October 6, 2006, Garcia wrote a glowing letter to Tom Malloy, the Executive Director of the Florida commission praising the performance of both men. In his letter to Malloy, Garcia says that Bertrand officiated a UFC event in Anaheim.

Did Garcia take care of his old ally by finding work for him in MMA shows? Another source says that Bertrand was brought in to replace Dean Lohuis as Chief Inspector in anticipation of his retirement, but when Lohuis didn’t leave, Bertrand was made an MMA official.

The information in this two part series has been gathered over the course of 16 months. It is based on taped interviews, documents, and multiple sources. This many people can’t be wrong. We spoke to State Executive Officers, judges, referees, promoters, sanctioning bodies, commissioners and others. We took the approach of - if we couldn’t prove it, we wouldn’t print it. Hopefully other journalists will now follow up on the story, because it is by no means the end of the story.

One thing is certain; wrongdoing is wrongdoing, regardless of power and position. Misuse of power is a blight on the sport. Some officials feel that there has been unfairness in giving out assignments, affecting morale. The California situation needs to find an effective and speedy resolution for the good of the boxing.