Woodland, CA – In December, a Yolo County Grand Jury indicted former UC Davis Fire Chief Nathan Trauernicht on charges that he authorized improper overtime benefits to an employee. The Grand Jury came down with a single felony—misappropriation of public monies.
On Friday, there was a hearing in front of Judge Richardson in consideration of the release of a redacted search warrant affidavit, upon request of media including the Vanguard.
At that time, Tom Johnson, counsel for the co-defendant in this case, Meagan McFadden, complained that counsel had not been provided with discovery on the affidavit for probable causes and therefore was inclined to oppose release to the media.
Judge Richardson ordered District Attorney Fritz Van der Hoek “to provide unredacted search warrant affidavits to defense counsel for discovery” as well as granted the DA’s “request to unseal all previously sealed search warrants affidavits for defense counsel to review.”
A further hearing was set for January 21, 2025, in which the determination for the release of additional documents to the media would be determined.
However, late on Friday afternoon, the court released the documents to the Vanguard and other media entities.
According to the facts contained in the affidavit, on January 18, 2024, UC Davis Police Investigators were informed of a potential fraud case in which it was believed “between 2021-2023 the Executive Assistant to the UC Davis Fire Chief, Meagan McFadden, claimed more than $42,000.00 in overpayments to her timesheet.”
A Title IX Investigation completed on January 8, 2024, found “there was a preponderance of evidence that supported that Meagan McFadden engaged in improper governmental activity and fraud, in violation of University Policy.”
McFadden was subsequently terminated from her position at the University.
UC Davis Chief Trauernicht was McFadden’s direct supervisor and approved her timesheets and turned them into payroll.
Lt. Joanne Zekany learned that there was “possible” information that Chief Trauernicht “had requested to change McFadden’s job employment classification, which would have allowed her to receive a pay increase. However, that request was *allegedly* denied by the Human Resources Department.”
Coincidentally, the affidavit continues, “it was believed that shortly thereafter, McFadden’s timesheets started reflecting unknown overtime pay.”
The affidavit noted, “It appeared that Chief Trauernicht was possibly involved or had knowledge of McFadden’s activity regarding this matter.”
Chief Trauernicht was subsequently alerted to the situation and “advised the overtime was an oversight and should be adjusted accordingly.”
At this point, an audit was performed on McFadden’s prior timesheets and noted about five additional timesheets with similar 20-hour shifts.
From 2019 to September 2021, McFadden submitted her timesheets without issue and claimed no overtime.
However, an investigation found that “on nine separate occasions, between 10/16/2021 to 07/08/2023, McFadden claimed one 20-hour shift per two-week pay period. It was further found, in thirty-four pay periods, between 03/19/2022 to 07/22/2023, that McFadden claimed one 20-hour shift per week, for a total of sixty-eight additional 20-hour shifts. It should be noted, McFadden was adding 1; hours of overtime to an existing 8-l:J.our shift, making it a 20 hour shift.”
The estimated total value of the fraudulent overtime was approximately $42,000. The report notes that Chief Trauernicht was not interviewed during the initial investigation.
Trauernicht was informed by letter, in February 2024, that he was being suspended (for two workdays) without pay based on his “failure to appropriately review timesheets submitted by your direct report.”
In an interview with McFadden, she “advised she was hired by the UC Davis Fire Department in late 2019. She advised prior to working at the Fire Department she did not know Chief Trauernicht, however, he did know her father, as they were both firefighters together in the past.”
McFadden continued that “at no point in time was she planning to, or defrauding the University out of overtime on her time sheet. She stated it was an error that went unnoticed for over a year’s time. She suggested that Chief Trauernicht overlooked the error as well, as he was the person who approved her time sheets.
“She further stated that at no point in time did she conspire or coordinate any fraud with Chief Trauernicht during the course of her employment.”
The detective writes, “The fact that Chief Trauernicht received a letter of intent of suspension without pay due to McFadden’s actions on 02/20/2024, followed immediately by McFadden’s request for Chief Trauernicht to serve as a personal reference on 02/21/2024, is profoundly contradictory. It suggests that although McFadden was terminated from UC Davis for fraudulently claiming overtime, that she and Chief Trauernicht still have some type of personal relationship, despite her actions.”
The detective made the request for text and cell phone records to determine whether they showed “communication between McFadden and Chief Trauernicht, to help establish if McFadden acted alone or if Chief Trauernicht was a coconspirator in this criminal investigation.”
The Vanguard, upon learning of the indictment, reached out to Trauernicht who referred the Vanguard to attorney Steven Plesser.
Plesser emphatically denied that his client had anything other than a professional relationship with McFadden and that “Nathan Trauernicht never misappropriated a penny of public money, nor did he knowingly assist Ms. McFadden in doing so. “
Plesser continued, “This indictment is wholly misguided, and appears to be based entirely on speculation of an improper relationship between Mr. Trauernicht and Ms. McFadden that simply did not exist, and of which there is no evidence.”
He added, “Mr. Trauernicht looks forward to using the judicial process to clear his name and to restore his well-deserved reputation as an honest and dedicated public servant.”
The matter goes back to court on January 21, 2025.
David – Your “Grand Theft” headline grabbed my attention because I have a Google Alert for Grand Theft. I am a great fan of the video game with the same name. In reading your story, there is no mention of any “Grand Theft” indictment just discussion of improper authorization of overtime pay resulting in misappropriation. What gives? Is this just a bait and switch tactic to get my eyeballs on this story because of my video game interest?
Please let me know if I missed something.
It was just short hand in a headline for an amount that exceeds the felony threshold. But I have changed it.