DOT Not Commenting on Use of Suspended Director’s Signature on Legal Documents Citing Potential “Litigation” or “Controversy”

Last week Glenn Jackson resigned from his position as the director of the driver’s license division at the North Dakota Department of Transportation.

He had been on mandatory leave since February pending an investigation into his professional behavior – an investigation which revealed accusations that, among other things, he had treated young female employees differently from other employees – but during that time Jackson’s name continued to appear on documents issued by the DOT.

Including legal documents where Jackson’s signature was intended as a certification.

As an example, this cover sheet for records submitted by the DOT for an administrative hearing pertaining to a DUI license suspension bears Jackson’s signature certifying the records are a “true and correct” copy of those maintained by the drivers license division:

When you get a DUI the Department of Transportation initiates a proceeding, separate from the criminal charges, against your driving privileges. The document above is a certification from one of those proceedings.

I obtained the cover sheet from a defense attorney who is representing the defendant in the case. I’m not identifying them as their identity isn’t germane to the story at this point. I’m using document to illustrate how the DOT apparently continued using Jackson’s signature to certify documents even when he was on leave and under investigation.

As you can see, the cover sheet indicates a date of April 26, but Jackson was reportedly on leave pending investigation from February until his resignation last week. There is no indication on this sheet that anyone other than Jackson signed the certification.

If he was on leave, how was he certifying that these records are true and correct? Was some third party doing it and using Jackson’s signature?

If this wasn’t Jackson signing these documents, how many times was his signature used by the DOT during the time he was on leave?

I sent these questions to DOT spokesperson Jamie Olson, and she declined to comment on behalf of the department. “Per your recent email, we have been advised by our Legal staff that it is department policy for employees to not discuss matters that may be subject to litigation or other controversy unless subpoenaed,” she told me in an email this afternoon.

This seems like a very big problem for the DOT.

Given Olson’s statement to me, it seems like they feel that way too.