What I know about Philip Armstrong is what I glean from the 173-page file that bears his name at the Monterey County Courthouse.

He liked to dress neatly, with a daily uniform of a pressed white dress shirt tucked into belted dress pants – no jeans or sweatpants, not ever. He shaved every morning, finishing with a dab of Old Spice. He liked to play chess and he loved Shakespeare. He liked Lays potato chips with his sandwiches, ice cream and cookies for a treat. He didn’t like cereal, but he’d eat an occasional bowl of hot oatmeal.

He was highly educated and had great manners. He was stubborn but loving. When his temper flared, it was best to leave him alone until he calmed down, and to stay out of range of his fist.

I’m reading Armstrong’s file because of a recent Superior Court order that will see the Public Guardian – the county agency tasked with managing the finances and physical safety of adults who, like Armstrong, are unable to manage those things on their own – paying back $15,000 to Armstrong’s estate.

In court parlance, it’s called a surcharge. It’s unprecedented in Monterey County and it’s happening because the Public Guardian, which had conserved Armstrong and had control of his finances and physical well-being, was paying $12,500 a month for his placement at Archway of Carmel, a residential care facility operated by Cyril Tupino.

Superior Court Judge Marla Anderson writes in her April 28 ruling the Public Guardian failed to exercise due diligence over Armstrong’s finances, paying far more than the prevailing rate for full-time care.

She could have ordered a surcharge of up to $75,000. While the $15,000 isn’t a huge sum, it is taxpayer money.

Armstrong, who suffered from dementia, and his wife first came under conservatorship in 2012, after Armstrong was found wandering his Monterey neighborhood. Armstrong’s wife died after being placed in one facility; Armstrong was sent to a facility in Del Rey Oaks, then Archway when the first facility closed.

Nobody disputes Armstrong received top-notch hospice care at Archway. What is in dispute is the cost. Between October 2015 and October 2016, the Public Guardian spent $142,500 on Armstrong’s room and board. In April 2016, Chief Deputy Public Guardian Teri Scarlett asked Tupino to lower the rate. In May, Anderson asked for more information about Archway’s fees; Tupino then agreed to reduce the monthly fee by $1,500.

In July, Scarlett noted Tupino resented the inquiries and suggested Armstrong be moved. By September, Tupino agreed to drop the rate to $10,000 a month.

Armstrong died in March.

In her ruling, Anderson notes the Public Guardian’s office seemingly made no effort to find a more affordable place for Armstrong. Had he lived another 18 months, his savings would have been depleted.

Scarlett, according to sources with knowledge of the situation, has been placed on administrative leave and could not be reached for comment. The Public Guardian’s office referred inquiries about the Armstrong case to Health Department Director Elsa Jimenez, and her office in turn referred inquiries to County Counsel Charles McKee.

McKee’s office, which acts as attorney for the Public Guardian, opposed Anderson’s order to show why the county shouldn’t be forced to pay the surcharge. He argued the office acted in good faith in administering Armstrong’s estate.

“We are reviewing the Court’s order and looking at the best ways to address the concerns raised in a comprehensive manner,” McKee writes by email. “We recognize and are concerned with the serious issues raised by the Court and will be working together to address those important matters.”

I asked McKee if he was aware several judges are so concerned with ongoing issues at the Public Guardian’s Office they plan on requesting meetings with county officials. He said he was not.

Superior Court spokeswoman Nona Medina tells me the court may pursue a meeting with the county on the Public Guardian’s office. It hasn’t been determined who will participate or when the meeting will take place.

Like the surcharge, that meeting will be unprecedented.

(1) comment

neil fleischmajer

There is another case MP21027 that was before Judge Wills on May 3, 2017. Another elderly person Roberta Prunieras who was conserved in 2012 has been victimized. Judge Wills has the case under Submission for a decision. Mary Duan is aware of this case and has been investigating. Another good man named Father Jim Short and his mother Margaret (Case M126624) was victimized by this same group of criminals. The truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.