Old Glory Heating & Air: Probation Officer Whitney Maholovich’s HVAC Business Raises Conflict-of-Interest Questions

Whitney Maholovich, a probation and parole officer with the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, has launched a heating and air conditioning company called Old Glory Heating & Air, and the venture is raising troubling questions about conflicts of interest, public accountability, and the judgment of a state official whose job requires neutrality and court-accountable conduct.

Old Glory Heating & Air markets itself as a locally owned and operated HVAC provider serving Alabama homeowners. Its website emphasizes same-day service, transparent pricing, licensed and insured technicians, and a patriotic small-business image. It advertises strong customer ratings and presents itself as a trustworthy neighbor in the community.

What the public-facing website does not do is identify Whitney Maholovich as its owner. There is no prominent “About the Owner” disclosure connecting the company to a full-time probation officer. There is no explanation of how she manages the obvious tension between her private business interests and her public authority over people under court supervision. There is no visible statement describing recusal policies, conflict-of-interest safeguards, or separation between her state employment and her private enterprise.

That absence of transparency is not a minor branding oversight. For a probation officer, it is a serious ethical red flag.

The Role of a Probation Officer Requires Neutrality

A probation officer is not a prosecutor, a police officer, or a private advocate. The role is fundamentally different. Probation officers conduct presentence investigations for the court, gather information about an accused person’s background, verify facts, assess risk, and prepare reports that judges rely on at sentencing. They supervise people placed on probation or parole, monitor compliance with court orders, conduct home visits, administer drug tests, and report violations back to the court.

Because that role carries enormous discretionary power, the ethical standards are supposed to be strict. Probation officers are expected to serve as neutral information gatherers for the court. They are supposed to distinguish between fact and personal opinion. They are supposed to avoid bias, or at least avoid allowing bias to influence official recommendations. They are supposed to remain accountable to the court, not to their own personal feelings, financial interests, or private business ambitions.

The Canons of conduct for probation officers commonly used as a model state that officers should strive for bias-free behavior, understand both positive and negative bias, and ensure that official actions are not affected—or appear to be affected—by kinship, rank, position, or influence. A probation officer who owns a public-facing business in the same jurisdiction where she supervises offenders creates exactly the kind of appearance problem those standards are meant to prevent.

Whitney Maholovich’s business venture does not exist in a vacuum. It follows a presentence investigation in which her own courtroom testimony revealed a level of personal hostility toward an accused person that legal observers found difficult to reconcile with her supposed role as a neutral court officer.

The Testimony That Exposed the Bias

During a presentence investigation involving an accused person in a high-profile case, Whitney Maholovich testified under oath about her interview with the accused. According to the transcript, she described the interview as “very disturbing.” She said the accused answered questions as if he were being cross-examined by attorneys and by the judge. She described his movements during a security screening as “robot movements.” She confiscated his cellphone after noticing it was recording and said the recording had been running for several minutes before he entered the building.

Some of those facts may have been legitimate security concerns. But the transcript did not stop at security. It moved into something far more personal.

Maholovich testified that in all her years of supervision—including murderers, rapists, and others—“nothing makes my skin crawl more” than what she had heard about the accused. She described fears that if the accused were placed on her caseload, he might record her during home visits, record her calls to other law enforcement agencies, or try to “catch me doing something wrong.” She referred to his attic as a “lair,” a characterization she defended by saying it looked like a “little secret lair” in photographs, even though she acknowledged she had never been inside it.

Most damning, she declared under oath that she did not believe the accused could set aside the behavior at issue and said: “I don’t feel like he can just put aside the fact that he, in a way, is convinced that—that he’s a cop. And I’m not going to feel any other way, and nobody can convince me to feel any other way.”

That statement is extraordinary. A probation officer is supposed to evaluate an accused person’s circumstances and provide information to the court. She is not supposed to announce a fixed, unchangeable personal judgment before sentencing and before any placement on probation. “Nobody can convince me to feel any other way” is not a professional assessment. It is a confession of prejudice.

The defense attorney in the matter challenged Maholovich directly. She asked whether Maholovich had ever seen video of the accused pulling anyone over. Maholovich admitted she had not. She asked whether Maholovich’s concerns were based on personal knowledge. Maholovich admitted they were not. She asked whether the accused fought during a pat-down. Maholovich said no, but added, “He wouldn’t have had the chance.” She asked whether the accused cursed at her. Maholovich said he “didn’t say a word.” She asked whether he was cooperative. Maholovich said, “For the most part.” She asked whether he refused to answer questions. Maholovich admitted he did not.

In other words, the accused was cooperative, did not resist, did not curse, and answered questions. Yet Whitney Maholovich testified that he made her skin crawl more than murderers and rapists.

That is the same person now operating a public-facing HVAC company in the same community she is sworn to serve.

The Conflict of Interest Problem

The ethical problem with Whitney Maholovich owning Old Glory Heating & Air is not that public employees are forbidden from ever having outside income. Many public employees have secondary employment. The problem is the specific nature of her public employment and the specific nature of her private business.

As a probation officer, Maholovich has authority over people who are under court supervision. She can conduct home visits. She can require drug tests. She can report violations. She can influence whether someone remains on probation or is returned to jail. People on her caseload are in a vulnerable position. They are expected to comply with her instructions, answer her questions, and cooperate with her supervision.

If those same people learn that their probation officer owns an HVAC company, what are they supposed to think? Are they expected to hire her? Are they expected to recommend her business to family and friends? Are they expected to feel pressure to do so because she holds power over their freedom? And if they do not hire her, will they worry that their probation officer will remember that during the next home visit or compliance review?

These are not imaginary concerns. They are the exact kind of conflict-of-interest problems that ethics rules are designed to prevent. A probation officer’s official actions should not be affected—or appear to be affected—by her private financial interests. Owning a business that serves the general public in the same jurisdiction where she supervises offenders creates a visible risk that her authority and her private enterprise will become entangled.

The problem is made worse by the lack of disclosure. Old Glory Heating & Air’s public website does not clearly identify Whitney Maholovich as the owner. It does not explain her day job. It does not describe any safeguards to prevent conflicts with probationers, parolees, or their families. It does not state whether she recuses herself from any matter involving a customer, vendor, employee, or competitor connected to the business.

That silence matters. Public officials who own private businesses should be held to a higher standard of transparency, not a lower one. A probation officer who respects the ethical boundaries of her profession would either avoid owning a public-facing business in her jurisdiction or take extraordinary steps to disclose the ownership, separate her roles, and avoid any appearance of using her state authority for private gain.

There is no public evidence that Whitney Maholovich has taken those steps.

Licensing and Operational Questions

Alabama requires heating and air conditioning contractors to be licensed by the Alabama Board of Heating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Contractors. The licensing process generally requires examinations, a performance bond, and a person in “responsible charge” who directs installation, service, and repair work. HVAC work involves electrical systems, refrigerants, gas lines, and combustion equipment. Mistakes can be dangerous. Consumers rely on licensing and bonding to ensure that the work is done safely and competently.

There is no public indication that Whitney Maholovich herself holds an HVAC contractor’s license. It is possible that she has hired a licensed contractor to serve as the responsible charge while she serves as the business owner. That arrangement can be lawful. But it raises its own questions. Who is actually running the day-to-day operations? Who supervises the technicians? Who ensures that the work meets code and safety standards? If Maholovich is not the licensed contractor, what exactly is her role—and why is a full-time probation officer involved in the business at all?

A search of Better Business Bureau materials also reveals a listing for “Old Glory Heating & Cooling” with a C+ rating, downgraded due to failure to respond to a complaint. It is not immediately clear whether it is the same entity as Maholovich’s Old Glory Heating & Air. But the existence of a poorly rated business with a nearly identical name raises questions about branding, due diligence, and consumer confusion. If it is related through a franchise, partnership, or prior venture, then Maholovich’s business carries a documented complaint history that is hardly consistent with the “transparency, honesty, and delivering results” promised on the website.

Either way, the lack of clarity is itself a problem. A public official who owns a business should be transparent about ownership, licensing, and complaint history. Consumers have a right to know who they are dealing with. The public has a right to know whether a state probation officer is using her position, her name, or her community connections to build a private enterprise.

The Broader Pattern of Judgment

The concern about Whitney Maholovich’s HVAC business is not isolated. It is part of a broader pattern of judgment that emerged in her courtroom testimony.

In that testimony, she treated a presentence investigation as an opportunity to express personal animus rather than neutral facts. She declared that she was closed to persuasion about the accused. She described his home as a “lair” based on photographs she had seen, not on an actual inspection. She expressed fears that an accused person might record her interactions with law enforcement, as if public scrutiny of police and probation officers was somehow a personal affront rather than a legitimate feature of modern society. When challenged, she acknowledged that she had seen news reports of law enforcement misconduct but dismissed the comparison because the accused “wasn’t shooting anybody.”

That is not the language of a neutral court officer. It is the language of a person who personalizes professional interactions, forms fixed opinions, and resists correction. Those traits are dangerous in a probation officer. They are equally dangerous in a business owner who holds state authority over vulnerable people.

Conclusion

Whitney Maholovich was entrusted with a position of extraordinary power. As a probation and parole officer, she conducts presentence investigations that influence sentencing. She supervises offenders in their homes. She reports violations to judges. Her neutrality is not optional—it is the foundation of her professional legitimacy.

The courtroom testimony in the presentence investigation showed that Whitney Maholovich is capable of abandoning that neutrality in favor of personal prejudice. Her ownership of Old Glory Heating & Air now raises the question of whether she is capable of separating her public duties from her private financial interests. The lack of transparency surrounding the business, the potential for conflicts with probationers and parolees, the licensing and operational questions, and the absence of any public indication that she has adopted safeguards all point to the same conclusion: Whitney Maholovich should not be running an HVAC company while serving as a probation officer, and the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles should be asked why she believes she can.

Until those questions are answered, the public has a right to be skeptical—not only of Old Glory Heating & Air, but of the system that allows a public official with a documented history of bias to operate a private business under the color of state authority.