When Brian LaVoie, the Operations Manager for Mansfield’s Department of Public Works (DPW), resigned on Dec. 29, 2025, town officials did not give any reason why. A 2026 forensic audit of the Mansfield DPW contextualizes that decision amidst a backdrop of departmental dysfunction, with numerous accusations levied directly at LaVoie himself.

“Multiple employees reported that the Operations Manager had inappropriately shared confidential information, including health and personnel matters,” reads the audit. “He typically arrived late to work, was rarely seen by many employees during the day, created a hostile work environment, and was perceived as having conflicts of interest. These reports were corroborated by multiple sources and contributed to low morale and reduced trust within the department.”

The audit, which was uncovered by a FOIA request submitted by one of Inside Investigator’s readers, found that the DPW suffered from inaccurate time reporting, deficiencies in the department’s purchasing and supervision, and a poor workplace culture. It also raised concerns as to whether cronyism influenced the DPW’s contracting with a tree-removal company that was selected despite not being the lowest bidder, and which was headed by a friend of LaVoie’s. The audit determined the town later paid “$7,394 in direct overbilling” and $22,286 “in total questioned billing,” to the company.

“Tree service spending increased significantly after Arborist Tree Care was awarded the contract in 2019, even though it was not the low bidder that year,” reads the audit. “The absence of supporting documentation and an invoice-level review reflects a failure in procurement oversight or, at a minimum, a failure to adequately document the reasons a perceived low bidder did not receive the award.”

The audit was conducted by 65th North Group, a municipal consulting firm, from the period of Jan. 1 to Nov. 17, 2025. Per the audit’s executive summary, it was commissioned by the Town in response to “concerns regarding time reporting, use of Town vehicles, supervisory oversight, vendor billing accuracy, high staff turnover, purchasing abnormalities, and department culture.” 

Brian LaVoie

Of the numerous problems identified in the audit, many of them were attributed to LaVoie. A survey of employees identified him as “the primary source of distrust, describing him as inconsistent, failing to follow through, or contributing to negative outcomes when issues are raised.” 

LaVoie was alleged to have inaccurately reported time worked, misused his town vehicle, contributed to the DPW’s low morale, and was implicated in a suspect bid for tree services.

“Brian LaVoie is repeatedly mentioned in comments about perceived lateness, limited availability, inconsistent direction, and concerns about follow-through,” reads the audit.

Upon reviewing DPW time sheets and GPS activity data for his town car, the auditors found LaVoie had “63.12 hours of inaccurate reporting or unaccounted time,” which included “idle time at his residence, late departures, early returns, and unrecorded mid-day home presence.” The audit also found LaVoie claimed 18.47 hours, which the auditors could not “conclude had any legitimate business purpose.”

When questioned by the auditors, LaVoie acknowledged that he kept poor timesheet documentation, but believed it wasn’t important as he was a salaried employee. He also admitted to allowing another administrative employee to fill out his timesheets for him. When asked whether he took longer breaks than he should, he said “probably.”

The DPW has a “working lunch” policy, “with the expectation that this time is spent continuing work while eating,” reads the audit. They found LaVoie to have violated this policy frequently; he had made 7 stops either in or near the parking lot of That Breakfast Place, 32 stops at a shopping center containing a Blaze Pizza and Dunkin Donuts, and one stop at Toast Four Corners. Altogether, these stops accounted for a combined 13 hours and 8 minutes.

“GPS data from Mr. Brian LaVoie’s assigned work vehicle shows repeated stops at or near locations that appear to be food establishments,” reads the audit. “The duration and frequency of certain stops indicate a pattern of extended stationary time at food-related locations, warranting review for compliance with timekeeping and break expectations.”

LaVoie admitted to stopping for food during the workday, and GPS data also found him to have taken 15-midday trips home, where he spent close to 10 hours while on the clock, despite not being allowed to work from home. The audit also found him to have frequently taken his town vehicle on non-work-related trips, making 29 stops at the Natchaug Hospital and nine stops at Oak Grove Montessori School. 

LaVoie’s relationship to Rocco Massaro, the owner of Arborist Tree Care, was another concern raised in the report. LaVoie admitted that he “worked with Rocco at the Town of West Hartford and has known him for years.” When the auditors assessed the bid documentation for 2019, they found “no written justification” for awarding the contract to the company, which was not the lowest bidder. When the auditors attempted to discover whose decision it was to award the bid, a blame game transpired:

“When interviewed, Mr. LaVoie said he didn’t know how the bid was awarded and that the PW Director was the one who decided who received the bids,” reads the audit. “When interviewed, the PW Director said that in 2019, he was the interim town manager and had nothing to do with the award to Arborist Tree Care, stating that Derek Dilaj was acting Public Works Director and was responsible for that action. Per Town policy, only the Town Manager or Finance Director would have the authority to make such a decision.”

Purchasing and Contractual Improprieties

The audit graphed expected and actual expenditures on tree-cutting from the years 2016 to 2025 and found a significant increase after the contract was given to Arborist Tree Care. In 2016, the town spent $23,655 on tree-cutting, on a budget of $6,000. In 2025, the town spent $152,475, with a budget of $100,000.

“This trend underscores the importance of robust contract administration and invoice documentation standards, as even modest weaknesses in invoice control can compound over time,” the auditors wrote.

DPW renewed the contract with Arborist Tree Care in 2022, but this time the auditors found that the company was the lowest bidder. Despite this, the auditors found costs that were unexpectedly high based on the contractual language, an issue compounded by “the limited substantiation of work performed relative to the amounts billed.” After reviewing all tree-cutting invoices for 2025, the auditors noted that the work descriptions were frequently vague and didn’t contain enough detail to assert whether the costs were legitimate.

“Common documentation gaps in invoices include the absence of itemized scope details, such as specific locations, the number of trees addressed, whether trees were trimmed or removed, or the basis for size or complexity charges,” reads the audit. “These documentation gaps materially limit the Town’s ability to confirm that charges were allowable under the approved pricing structure and that invoices were accurate, complete, and reasonable prior to approval and payment.”

The DPW was also found to have insufficient purchasing controls, engaging in “multiple violations of purchasing policy.” Tree bid aside, DPW was found to have approved invoices without proper documentation or that were inconsistent with contracted rates, and to have purchased two vehicles (totaling $92,727) and $45,974 worth of lawnmowers without purchase orders in place. The DPW also unilaterally contracted a paving company without a purchase order in place.

“Town management said that when Public Works Department management was asked about it, their response was ‘We Fucked up,’” reads the audit. “Regardless of the reason, the facts remain that there is a consistent pattern of Public Works Department management failing to follow proper purchasing policies, established procedures, or basic internal controls over purchasing operations.”

Double Standards

The auditors conducted interviews with 31 then-current and five former employees, and noticed a divergence of opinion between the DPW’s managerial and hourly employees. While managers said the department was “built on trust and professional judgment, with an emphasis on getting the work done rather than strict timekeeping,” hourly employees said they felt lost due to a lack of oversight from senior management, and that management’s laissez-faire attitude towards work hours represented a “double standard.”

“Many employees described limited communication from management, inconsistent follow-up, and a lack of clarity about priorities,” reads the audit. “Some employees indicated they received minimal direction at the beginning of the day and were often required to proceed based on their own judgment or direction from immediate supervisors rather than consistent communication from senior leadership.”

Several employees said that “raising concerns was discouraged,” leading to “guarded behavior, reduced transparency, and a reluctance to surface problems early.” The auditors said most of the employees they interviewed “described morale as low, attributing it to leadership behavior, perceived favoritism, inconsistent accountability, and interpersonal conflict.” Interviews also showed “mixed perceptions” on the department’s professionalism, with “interpersonal conflict, negative commentary, and, in some cases, bullying or harassment” impacting employees’ morale.

“Overall, the interview themes depict a department with dedicated non-managerial staff who generally believe that Public Works Department management significantly contributes to issues affecting trust, morale, and overall operational effectiveness,” reads the audit. “The most consistent themes include inconsistent communication and follow-through, perceived inequities in accountability, and a workplace climate in which employees feel guarded about raising concerns.”

The auditors also surveyed current and former employees and included the survey results from 21 respondents. Some of the most significant findings were:

• Approximately 52% of the respondents indicated the department was either “usually not very professional” (43%) or “not at all professional” (9%), 
• Approximately 62% indicated that management did not “instill a strong ethical culture,” 
• 65% believed other employees were not completing full shifts, 
• 60% did not trust management “to do the right thing”

The concerns surrounding management were not limited to LaVoie, either. The auditors said that the Public Work Director, John Carrington, “relied heavily on subordinate self- management, with insufficient monitoring or corrective action despite issues and concerns frequently being presented to him.” Survey responses also contained comments that suggested that employees’ concerns with LaVoie were “reinforced” by Carrington, who at times was “perceived as backing him or failing to intervene effectively.” The auditors found it “concerning” that Carrington approved LaVoie’s timesheets “week after week without verifying their accuracy,” especially given Carrington’s consistent presence and LaVoie’s frequent absence at morning meetings. Per the Town of Mansfield’s website, Carrington is still employed as DPW’s director.

Perhaps the most obvious indicator of the department’s issues with morale was the high-turnover rate recorded by the auditors. The auditors noted that at the time of the audit’s conclusion, DPW had 29 employees, but eight employees had left the year prior, representing a turnover rate of approximately 28%. This also did not account for another employee who left during the audit period. Citing statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and ICMA, the auditors said the average rate of turnover rate for public sector maintenance and equipment workers was 8% to 15%.

“Many of the Department staff members cited the Public Works Operations Manager’s and/or the Public Works Director’s poor leadership as a contributing factor in their departure,” reads the audit. “ According to town management, several employees have resigned due to poor morale or mistreatment in the Public Works Department. When questioned about employee turnover rates, the PW director appeared to dismiss the issue, stating that several employees have left employment elsewhere within the Town government as well.”

Ultimately, the audit provided a litany of recommendations for how the town could improve the DPW’s many deficiencies and advised against criminal prosecution.

“Referral for criminal prosecution is not recommended, given the facts developed in this investigation, particularly because the primary contributor to the issues that precipitated the investigation resigned during the process, and from a criminal prosecution standpoint, proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is much greater than by a preponderance of the evidence,” reads the audit. 

Inside Investigator requested comment from Mansfield’s Mayor, Toni Moran, but has not received a response at this time.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.