ML20028D799
| ML20028D799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/23/1982 |
| From: | Jamarl Cummings NRC |
| To: | Gamble D, Mark Resner, Sinclair J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A771 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301190463 | |
| Download: ML20028D799 (2) | |
Text
-
N L.
.E A B R E G U L A e..A < C.0......... O N
,, [ ~ *;
~
W ASHi? JCT P * '
(.
2.*0 11 K
,,,l~ -
u.a f l S.' A c?
April 23,1982 60 b David Hark fesact John Sinckr
Reference:
Your memo of April 20,'.1982.
If I had thought that disciplinary action was warranted in this case I I did not then and I do not now.
Some would have recommended same.
weeks ago I shared my viewpoint on this subject with some or all of you.
Stupidity, lack of common sense and/or incompetency does not in my mind 30 necessarily warrant disciplinary action, i.e., letter of censor, days on the beach, etc., but rather administrative action, i.e., job removal, less responsibilities, etc. If disciplinary action resulted In my view the f rom every screw up in NRC, few of us would be around.
appropriate administrative action has been taken in this matter both as-to individuals and programmatic change.
As you ar well aware, 01A investigative reports at one time contained the opinions, recommendations and analysis of the principle investigator.
This practice was discontinued by me for several reason own and report only the results of investigation and not recommendations Further, that DIA recommendations and opinions based on and opinions.
investigative findings should be communicated to the Commission in a To the best of my recollection separate memo from the Director.
Messrs. Fortuna, Strickler,. Hurney and Gamble oppose ray decision in this It is not a secret that some individuals felt very strongly d
.that it was their absolute "right" as an investigator to submit recommen a-matter.
tions and opinions as part of their investigative report without any input from the Director or the A/D for Investigations. It was their view that the Director was - at a minimum - bound to forward investigators recommendations to the Commission even if the Director disagreed with the recommendations and analysis.
I thought I had clearly disabused the
- However, investigative staff of this bizarre logic several years ago.
tne overall tone of your April 20 memo convinces me that perhaps my position on this point needs reinforcement. Old positions sometimes take s
a icng time to die and of ten do not die gracefully.
In ry opinion your April 20 memo essentially amounts to a prosecutorial I
brief, is highly subjective and suggests conclusions which are based on 8301190463 830104 PDR COMMS NRCC l
CORRESPONDENCE PDR l
2 a partial recitation of the facts.
If you can not accept my My policy on dissent is straightforward. decisions and recomm in memorandum fom directly to the Chaiman.
In the future, if you do not intend to follow this cou serves no useful purpose.
.../.
' d#
1 p.,es J Cu, +35) 6 S
e S
-m
-.c