first-hand knowledge to testify at the hearings; 2) whether the declarants' out of court statements were in writing, signed, or in affidavit form; 3) the agency's explanation for failing to obtain signed or sworn statements; 4) whether the declarants were disinterested witnesses to the events, and whether the statements were routinely made; 5) the consistency of the declarants' accounts with other information, other witnesses, other statements, and the statement itself; 6) whether collaboration for these statements can be found in agency records; 7) the absence of contradictory evidence; and 8) the credibility of the declarants when they made their statements. Id.; Sinsel v. Harrison County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-17-219 (Dec. 31, 1996); Seddon v. W. Va. Dep't of Health/Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep't, Docket No. 90-H-115 (June 8, 1990).

The email from Magistrate Kuhl was created four months after the incident at the request of Grievant. Furthermore, it would be against his interest to admit. In weighing the evidence, the veracity of Ms. Bragg's immediate reaction trumps the trustworthiness of the email sent more than four months later. The testimony of two witnesses, with greater credibility than Grievant, supports Respondent's proposition that Grievant violated West Virginia Code § 49-5-101. Further, Grievant admitted the statement of "Oh well." She claims that was simply her way of ending the conversation to avoid further argument. Ms. Bragg interpreted her tone and comment to mean "I don't care." Combined with Grievant's other responses on the telephone with Ms. Bragg, this comment further supports the likelihood of Grievant's disclosure. Truly, Grievant's disclosure of the reporter to Magistrate Kuhl seems more likely than not. Thus, Respondent has proven by a preponderance that Grievant disclosed the name of the reporter of child abuse; thereby violating West Virginia Code § 49-5-101 and the employee code of conduct. That