ML20043C579
| ML20043C579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/03/1989 |
| From: | Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042D040 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-6 NUDOCS 9006050349 | |
| Download: ML20043C579 (55) | |
Text
. _.
i 1
4 i
OFFICIAL USE ONLY REPORT OF INVESTIGATION (89-15)
INTRODUCTION This, investigation was initiated by the then Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) in early February 1989 based on allegations involving an abuse of travel funds and the incentive awards program The allegations were provided by telephone to Sharon R.
Connelly, Director, OIA, by an individual, apparently in the employ of who requested anonymity.
On February 14,
- 1989, CIA opened an inquiry into the alleger's concerns.
(Attachment 1.)
OIA investigative activity continued until February 28, 1989.
By Chairman Zech's letter of that date, the Commission transferred to me responsibility for the further conduct of all pending OIA investigations involving OI.
Accordingly, the OIA files pertaining to this investigation were furnished to me.
On April 5,
- 1989, at my request, an OIA Investigator,'was detailed to assist in the pursuit of the investigation.
According to a preliminary examination of the OIA
- files, including subsequent information provided by OIA, the anonymous source specifically alleged that " official travel is being scheduled for personal reasons and the awards program is being misused...
80% of the staff is receiving awards and an 9006050349 900405 PDR FOIA AIROZO90-6 PDR
.-.-,--,g, y-
-gr T
T
l 1
2 employe\\ n e
i return for the employee award was given to an agreeing not to file a grievance."
(Attachment 2.)
Allegations regarding travel focused on the conduct of Although the conduct of was the primary focus of the allegations regarding
- awards, it was indicated that might be involved as well.
On April 19, Ms. Connelly was contacted by to obtain any further D formation that Ms.
Connelly might have obtained from the alleger that was not included in the OIA files previously turned over to me.
Ms. Connelly provided a list of seven additional allegations that, prior to the reassignment of the investigation, CIA had determined warranted inquiry.
(Attachment 3.)
Based on a review of the OIA case file and subsequent information obtained from Ms.
- Connelly, conducted interviews of the following individuals:
l l
l l
l l
I
a i
3 i
l
)
An eleventh interviewee requested confidentiality on the basis that public release of his or her identity could lead to reprisals..
In conjunction with agency proccdures set forth in Manual Chapter
- 0517, Management of Allegations, and the Commission Statement of Policy on Confidentiality, that individual was granted confidentiality to ensure the effectiveness of the investigation.
The interviews of and were stenographically transcribed.
Those of the other individuals were tape-recorded by and subsequently transcribed.
i Although Ms.
Connelly was steadfast in her refusal to identify the person who had presented the allegations to her, there is no indication in the record that that person (in contrast to interviewee) was accorded confidentiality.
In the circumstances, I see no reason to withhold from this l
l report the fact that, at a very early stage of the investigation, it became clear to both and me that all of the allegations were provided by
., who is employed l
l at the level.'
The interviews l
l of conducted by removed any possible doubt in that regard.
For, as shall become clear in the statement of facts with regard to each allegation, no interviewee other than It is my understanding that, at present, i
(
4 offered any substantiation of the allegations that had been put before Ms. Connelly.
To the contrary, to the extent they were in a
position to
- omment on a
specific allegation, the other interviewees disputed its accuracy.
In sum, each and every allegation that was examined during the course of the investigation had as a primary or derivative source.
Those allegations ultimately totaled twelve in number (a
few being added during the course of the investigation).
The subject matter of eleven of them was as follows:
1.
receipt of a high quality increase (HQI) award 2.
performance appraisals and award recommendations 3.
Improper procedures followed in grant of performance award 4.
" cavalier" with grant of performance awards 5.
Preparation of performance elements and standards 6.
Travel abuse on the part of 7.
Frequent travel of 8.
Security problems at White Flint 9.
Asserted destruction of computer reports 10.
dereliction of duty 11.
Improper maintenance of case files The twelfth allegation was directed b'y against the individual who requested, and was given, status as a confidential source.
-Suffice it to say that and I are satisfied, based upon both the interview of the source and other information
I 5
obtained during the course of the investigation, that the allegation is without substance and that the individual in question was not guilty of any misconduct.
If any commissioner desires further elaboration on this matter, and I will be happy to provide it in camera.
The balance of this report is divided into two parts.
The first part consists of the basic facts as disclosed by interrogation of interviewees and our examination of relevant documents.
In this connection, a preliminary word of explanation is in order.
On each allegation, submitted to me an extensive statement that went into enormous detail respecting the l
content of every interview and examined document having any bearing upon that allegation.
In the case of most of the allegations, and for reasons that I hope will become readily
- apparent, I ultimately decided that no necessity existed to burden the commissioners and their staffs with that amount of detail.
Therefore, although approach to the preparation of submission to me accorded with my wishes as communicated to at the inception of the investigation, I
undertook to reduce drastically the factual statement on all but allegations 1 and 6.
On those allegations, some measure of i
editing was done.
The second part of the report consists of an analysis of the facts.
It was prepared by me alone, without any involvement on the part of was, however, given an opportunity to review the analysis before the submission of the report to the
6 commission and is in general agreement with it.
I anticipated this agreement because and I had discussed the significance of the investigation disclosures at some length before I embarked upon the preparation of the analysis and it was quite apparent that we were of one mind as to the conclusions that those disclosures compelled.
One final preliminary word.
conducted a thorough and competent investigation and demonstrated is a skilled professional investigator.
I am grateful to oIA (now office of the Inspector General) for having made services available to me.
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS A11eaation 1:
receiot of a hiah auality increase _
(hoi) award In November 1988, (i.e.,
received performance appraisal rating for the period from October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988.
(Attachment 4 and Attachment 5.)
Although who as is had evaluated overall performance as " excellent",
was disappointed with the narrative rating.
(Attachment 6.)
prepared a rebuttal to the appraisal and planned to submit it to upon c
7 return to the office.2 (Attachment 7.)
During
- absence, had frequent and lengthy discussions with regarding dissatisfaction with the narrative in the appraisal.
According to had read the appraisal and rebuttal and was aware of concerns, which focused upon the performance element " personal attributes" for which received lowest rating -
" fully successful."
told intended to file a grievance against for receiving a " poor" appraisal.3 (Attachment 8.)
In late N.ovembe r,
before even talking to contacted the office of Personnel (OP) to initiate grievance procedures.
By memorandum dated November 25, 1988, requested OP, to grant an extension of time for filing a grievance because and had been unable to discuss concerns and to resolve informally the matter. (Attachment 9.)
I travel and leave records for reflect that, during November-December 1988, was f requently out of the office due to official travel and annual leave.
3 The record is not totally clear on whether had reviewed
' appraisal prior to receiving it from and at what point decided to file a grievance based on the rating.
In a subsequent interview, stated "
wrote the words.
They were pretty clumsy, and that is writing.
But gave it to to review.
I knew what was in my appraisal long before I ever got it, because shared it with me.
And that is when I started telling how unhappy I was.
And I said if I get an appraisal like that, I am going to have to grieve it.
I am not going to put up with being told that I have to get along with people in my own inimitable way.
I was getting my job done and I will be rated on my work and not my s
sparkling disposition."
8 on December finally met with to discuss the appraisal and rebuttal to it.
According to agreed to make "one or two" word changes in the performance elements and standards: "one element came up that I got along well with people.
And I pointed out to a year ago or almost two years now, that you can't tell me I have to get along with people....
- However, we did change it and the elements and standards I signed said that you -- that I would interact well with people, which is kind of the same thing, but it wasn't quite as strong, I
.elt."
(Attachment 10 and Attachment 4.)
The meeting was characterized by as
" unsatisfactory."
indicated to that had received complaints from co-workers within the past year and asked that change
- attitude, also repeated a previously stated intent to abolish position, and added that Personnel had informed "no one in the NRC would take since was so difficult to get along with. "' (Attachment 5 and Attachment 11).
stated that, during the meeting, announced to that was considering filing a grievance and that was " unmoved."
According to in early January 1989, as was reading the NRC manual chapter on grievance procedures, l
' The record reflects that contacted Personnel at an earlier point in time and discussed the possibility of an early retirement for and that office of Personnel, had called regarding this matter.
l 9
walked into work station and a conversation to this effect ensued:
"What are you doing?"
"I'm checking on how
- o file a
grievance."
"It's about your performance appraisal.
You're not happy with it?
What would it take for you not to file this grievanee?"
"Well, I'd like to have I
- think, an apology from or you know, you can pay me."
now maintains that was joking and opines that had been joking as well.
A few days later, however, complained to about poor appraisal compared to those of and respectively),
allegedly replied:
is out of the office today, I'm acting.
I can sign off an award for you."
To this, assertedly responded in self-styled
" flippant" manner:
"Sure, I'll fill it and you'll sign it."
stated that was not seriously suggesting that would not file a grievance if were given a monetary award.
Nonetheless, surprised by suggestion, after thinking about it decided to fill out the paperwork to process a high
30 quality increase award (HQI) for (Attachment 5 and i 2.)
did not view or actions as improper from a procedural standpoint because position involved added that ".
. and had it been somebody else, l
and had it been wrong, I still would have filled out the forms and said,
'I don't agree with this.'"
In worked directly with was therefore cognizant of job performance and, according to felt should not complain about an
" excellent" appraisal.
- Also, it was within authority and duties, to Although felt de, served the award based on work performance and thus war, entitled to it (and in fact
" suggested that even I be put in and wrote up.
for the two awards that the commission gives out"),
viewed actions as morally, even though not procedurally, wrong.
did not discuss the award with and did not know if had done so.
Dat speculated that knew about it, and i
5 performance appraisal, award
- form, and personnel action f or the high quality increase reflect that signed these documents on 1989.
related that, prior to this date, had refused to sign the appraisal.
i 11 did not have additional discussions about whether would file a grievance. (Attachments 4, 5, and 10.)
further related that had talked with in Personnel and had decided not to file a grievance because old not believe that had a strong case.'
It had also become apparent to that, while could grieve the elements and standards of the appraisal (which had already been modified as a result of conversations between and Personnel),
perception of work was a non-grievable matter.
noted that came to this decision i
before received the HQI, but possibly after and had processed the paperwork for that award.
did not recall if advised of plans to drop the grievance.
l (Attachment 4 and Attachment 13,)
was interrogated respecting whether had information that established a direct i
link between threat to file a grievance and t.5 HQI was given.
was able to provide no such information.
- Rather, conclusion that there was a relationship between the fact that was researching the grievance process and the actions of in approving the HQI was rooted in "an assumption" on part based upon circumstantial evidence.
- Moreover, l
l acknowledged that, had felt that had a strong case, l
6 In one interview, said that did not file a grievance because "it would make the office look bad."
(Attachment 10).
At a later interview, said decided not file because "the whole grievance system is stacked for management against the employee."
(Attachment 4.)
12 l
would have filed a grievance no matter how many awards received.
concluded that "no matter what the outcome of a grievance was, it wasn't going to change perception of me, which is probably what I really wanted.
I really wanted to know that thought I was doing a good job, which obviously for whatever reason doesn't think."
(Attachment 4.)?
was subsequently interviewed regarding interpersonal
- skills, specifically as they relate to When asked if felt had a problem in this area, stated that "if people do not like me, they do not have to be around me and I do not have to be around them.
Nobody has had the courage to tell me that they did not like me."
further acknowledged that is " smart-mouthed" at times and has "always made off-the-wall remarks and probably will never change at this point."
Relative to a comment attributed to (when was on
- During the course of the investigation, received an allegation from interviewees that had received
'a grade promotion in because of threat to file a grievance against based upon belief that was guilty of preeselection in filing a position for which had applied.
The fact is that did file such a
grievance and withdrew it af ter being promoted from a to Whether there was a causal relationship between the promotion and the withdrawal is uncertain.
denies any such connection; other employees (and as well) note that openly boasted about having been promoted in order to prevent from pursuing the grievance.
Refer to Reports of Interview of Attachments 14, 15, and 16, respectively.
1
i
)
13 that hoped that plane crashed (discussed below),
admitted making that statement.
offered:
"I have said, you know, what is flying, put on Delta.
Well, gosh, that certainly in would it not."
added that is not going to say things that does not mean. (Attachment 8.)
recalled many diccussions with regarding performance appraisal.
confirmed that was very upset by the personal skills section pertaining to workir.g well with other people.
stated that, for quite some
- time, about l
l being cross and ornery and not getting their work processed. For l
whatever
- reason, according to became uncomfortable with In addition, some of the headquarters staff asked to up interpersonal skills."
l l
Although believed the re.ing in the appraisal was
- fair, could understand why might be upset with some of the narrative.
In an effort to be impartial,
- stated, met with Personnel and changed some of the narrative portions of the appraisal.
In
- view, work was consistent, "did l
l a good job", and, therefore, deserved an " excellent" performance rating.
This was the basis of recommendation that 1
l 14 receive an award.'
stated that told that felt performance was worthy of an award and asked to recalled that received an HQI after had asked whether preferred a cash award or an HQI.
did not remember if was during this time, but related that, had this been the
- case, if they said that, when the awards package for was prepared and sent forward for processing, Within this time frame, mentioned to on several occasions that was considering filing a grievance.
never attempted to persuade ilot to file a
grievance even though did not believe had sufficient grounds to do so.
As explained, is going to do what wants to do. "
denied the allegation that also denied claim that had previously stated that had " saved" I
a The record reflects that recollection of the details involved in decision to put in for an award is not clear.
states that in early January 1989, asked to put in for an award; that in fact, brought the matter to attention.
- However, as the questioning maybe continues appears to retract this view:
didn't even bring it up."
15 wasn't at var with considering the fact that believed had an open door to discuss freely concerns with also denied the allegation the and related that discussed award with added that talked about filing a grievance both prior to and after the paperwork for award was submitted (including during the period before signed appraisal dated January 9,
1989).
maintained that the two issues were separate and distincts there was no relationship between intent to file a
grievance and decision to effect an HQI award for (Attachment 17.)
confirmed that, was frequently out. of the office.
gave According to was extremely upset and told
' At a later point in the interview, was not certain whether or, instead, But recollection was that, in either event, before On this issue, According to
- Moreover,
i i
~.
l i
16 that the rating was the poorest performance rating had ever received.
wanted to i
so advised i
l On December sent With the assistance of and in Personnel, reviewed appraisal and the memorandum.
After some in the evaluation relative to the performance element
" personal attributes."
The overall rating, however, remained the same.
Subsequently, on December
- 1988, met with regarding
- concerns, took issue with the phraseology of the performance element with reference to getting along with
- others, told that had received negative feedback from Headquarters and staff, including to the effect that was not servicing the field in a timely manner, that was not helpful, and that gave personnel the impressLa that was doing them a l
favor by In
- view, l
had a problem in that area, and, although performance was not "below failure",
could improve.
- Also, observed, was having difficulty accepting the fact that, in a
=
)
l i
i j
i 17 l
staff function, job is primarily not to In
- fact, at reminded the that has and that i
is not discussed this matter with as well.
cited a
recent example of characteristic behavior in this regard.
While acting in capacity as was confronted by regarding purported lack of professionalism:
had gone in and told that was ineffective, inefficient, dumped on As saw it, conduct was
" inappropriate."
had further explained to that, because is a and, thus, organization, had responded that "
didn't like dealing with stupid people" and "it's their fault."
on that note, said i
spent a couple of hours discussing this issue at length with but to no avail.
would not accept the criticism that perhaps was part of the problem and told so.
was informed by and Personnel of intent to file a grievance.
Having had discussions with Personnel, was l
l 1
18 confident that performance appraisal.
informed that could pursue whatever legal i
recourse desired.
maintained that the HQI award was deserved and had nothing to do with threat to file a grievance.
By way of elaboration, stated that, had including These communications extended throughout,the period during which on travel or leave status.
In the case of when provided refused to sign it because disagreed with it and did not return it to opined that was trying to
" induce" With was to returned the appraisal with signature, which did not occur until January
'O The record also reflects that and had subsequent discussions with Personnel regarding for the next rating period, By memorandum dated May 26, 1989, prepared for by (Attachment 16.)
As previously indicated, there is conflicting testimony between regarding this issue.
O
i 19 9, 1989, added that would never do that it's inappropriate in my view."
Had signed appraisal,,
the last six years.
had no discussions with pointed out that it was absurd to believed th,at changed mind about filing a grievance before signed evaluation, did not talk with about intent,to file a grievance, although by that had This was a personal decision for also stated that had advised had not sent the awards' packages for and to Personnel for processing when 1
- Further, although had informed that had sent those packages to Personnel, that office disclaimed having received them.
According to later'found the packages on desk.
denied that either to prevent from or that for the same reason.
was not motivated by threats of filing l
l l
a grievance.
In fact, had made similar charges in the I
r 20 past that had in Personnel.
When
, left the agency in
- 1988, determined that could planned Personnel reviewed plan and found no problems.
Several years earlier, had said that would consider an "early out" retirement as an option Personnel viewed it as an option in this instance; as another alternative.
- But, according to
" was During this time frame, an attorney, was a According to members of that asked to in on the l
had extensive discussions with To this end, I
contacted various offices within the NRC and to see if had j
i Despite the fact were
1 21 unsuccessful -in this endeavor, also had l
A l
in the area of where had prior work experience.
surmised that, because of
" caustic reputation", no one wanted 1:
l-to work with was characterized by as a l^
" difficult person to deal with, just not an employee that is regarded as one conducive to a quality of office atmosphere."
about this matter.
While acknowledged that has always dealt with cautiously because of,their poor relationship, could not account for the continual decline.
I think i
there's nothing you can do more than J
l you have done in trying to rectify the situation."
l also denied the allegation that was "saving" In fact, told l
and that believed "we're in good shape here procedurally" to which their response was
'l l
added that, with a strong-l willed individual such as it would not matter if 1^
j '-
got one award, two awards, or no award, going to f!)e a grievance if thinks right."
said that, that office and creating inneroffice problems, but they approached l
l as well~ on the subject.
Specifically, 1
and told that needed to work l
1
4 8
22 interpersonal skills and that they were having a difficult on in dealing with on a daily basis.
It was relayed to that view was the same as when
'had raised this concern with "It's not my problem; it's your problem."
Members, of technical staff further advised that they were prepared to sign affidavits attesting to lack of interpersonal skills should (Attachment 18.)
stated that, as a member of interacts on a daily basis In view, there is an open office atmosphere.
noted in this regard that, had to prevent from would have known about it.
described the allegation as " ludicrous."
had become aware that had planned and perhaps as well, through discussions with them.
In
- addition, discussed last performance appraisal with Specifically, asked if had trouble with the responded that the perception in is that is not doing job, that is not supporting and that refers to as
" stupid", "wimps", " imbecile", " idiots" and "non-men",
confirmed that, on one occasion, and talked candidly to about caustic manner and
23 comment at the end of the conversation was "well, I thought about it and I've decided that it's not my problem.
It is their problem."
on a personal note, said did not have a problem with
, because understands and deals with as prefers, which is to be "as hard as is" though further related that, since 1984, when became employed by the NRC in has always been abrasive.
In the last year, however, noticed that relationship with has become
, has changed for the worse:
very, very vindictive in speech" toward and seemingly, "out to get According to there could be many reasons why In view, however, neither would have done so to commented on the quality of the office environment-since approximately 18 months ago, attributed the source of intra-office problems to one individual:
As put it:
in my entire life, I have only run into 4 or 5 people I think are evil, just evil persons.
And in my view one of them.
Just evil.
There's nothing that can do to make a
happy person.
Nothing."
added that obviously hates and characterized this relationship as "the most pitiful l
_._..._.;=
[Q
- s. ! '
24 i;U' situation."
In
- view, is an overbearing, and f
sometimes intimidating, individual but is not intimidated by' and are "not going to put up with that 4
-}
nonsense."
stated that, despite their differences, i
talks freely with specifically recalled one conversation.
involving As described it:
This event occurred on the afternoon of the and it was a conversation that was kind of generated in the hallway between my office and office and the office of And at that time we talked about made the comment, a
"Well, you know, maybe plane will crash, hopefully."
4 informed that it was not a nice thing to say;-
said it was a terrible thing to say, response j
to their concern about not merely but the other individuals on-the airplane was a statement to the offect that "that's kind d
of how I feelt' and "maybe it would be okay if was just kind of i
sucked out of the aircraft."
shook their heads y
2 and walked away because they felt comments were inappropriate, regardless of feelings toward a
further related that had made similar 1..
comments about on numerous prior occasions; i.e.,
had j
_E
................._.._________--w
25 stated that hoped or wished that plane would crash and then would not have to worry about any more.
(Attachment n
21.)
A confidential-source- (CS) provided background information relative t,o the allegation that by CS related that was deeply disturbed about having received an " excellent" (rather than " outstanding") rating for the period ending in September 1987.
could be heard
" yelling through the walls" about the appraisal.
was aware that CS had a similar disagreement with over CS' According to CS, the following conversation ensued:
"You're a damn fool to push for that."
CS:
"What do you mean?"
"It's only a
piece of paper.
Put yourself in for an HQI.
That's what I did.
That's money.
Keep your eye on the money.
The money's the important thing.
Take an excellent with an HQI rather than an outstanding with nothing."
CS:
"I'd rather have an outstanding.
There's a principle involved here."
"You can't eat principles."
CS also provided historical information regarding
t n
26 and relationship with In when was established,.
was offered by the (in which was then of ficially employed) to Having recently returned from a detail to the was " adrift without assignment."
Inquiries into professional and personal reputation revealed that was " universally disliked" and "not a
team player."
- However, was provided the L
opportunity of a detail to
, with the provision that
-take a reduction in grade from-a to a
j reluctantly agreed to the downgrade.
Shortly thereafter, prepared a position description for a 1,
o It was around this time-that became the began to develop strong personal animosities towards people who either became employed by, or were being considered for l.
employment within, the organization -- sometimes based on mere 1
l slights.
A pattern evolved whereby alienated the professional and support staff as well, CS provided a list of the following individuals who could not get along with or decided to leave because of disruptive personality:
and
27 (Attachment'22.)
According to has been involved in confrontations with all of the staff at one time or another, including the The
, informed directly that they were having problems with on one occasion, a young man in the had a heart attack and comment was "well, why doesn't just go ahead and die?"
- Moreover, the animosity between and is is always making very derogatory remarks obvious to about and tries to put down to all of the people on Having
"~
our staff, to all of our people in the worked in; since said their relationship has deteriorated over the years until it is almost intolerable at this point for everyone in the office.
- Further, stated emphatically that is harrassed and intimidated by and believes that is as well, has spoken to and about this matter but has not seen a change.
(Attachment 23.)
A11ecation 2:
and oerformance acoraisals and award recommendations On November
- 1988, returned to work after having been out of the office the prior day, assertedly was informed by a subordinate, that and
y
.: g g -
28 (the respectively) had spent November in office " writing" their. performance appraisals.
Subsequently,
.that respectively.
The forms (in
} and
-(in the case of
).
)
assignment was Upon examining the " writing style" in the narrative portion of the appraisals, came to the conclusion that, in
'i i
fact,.
and not had written the i
appraisals.
further speculated that had used the text > of the appraisals as the basis for their appraisals.
Insofar as the award forms were concerned,.
thought that had filled out the. amounts themselves and, in doing so, had chosen the maximum permissible amount, t
brought to attention that could not authorize an award for thereupon so.that would still receive a greater amount than did so respectLealy) and then In view, particularly in the case of the awards
_n-. _ -,. -.
._,____-___._.__._.._-._______n,______,__,____
y
p l
29-were not justified on the basis of job performance.
On this
- score, stated that told it was wrong to I
When interviewed, conceded that had not observed either or filling' out the award forms.
(
- Rather, acknowledged, accusations were based on what-deemed to be circumstantial evidence and the product of a process of elimination.
During interview, stated
- that, while had observed and
" writing together"'in
. office, u-did not know what they were writing, memory was unclear as to what might have told on the basis that work-justified it.
With regard to the performance appraisal, As yet informal, basis.
By the end of the rating period, they _ know so that there is no misunderstanding or disappointment.
Essentially, process.
For example, might
=,
1 30 mind-taking the few thoughts please You can bring that back.to me.
Then you can take a look at it, and Although could not recall specifically asked it was not an uncommon practice.
Prior.to (on or about November 4),
provided with performance appraisal for the previous year (10/1/86-9/30/87).
also gave i
areas and. asked Relative to appraisal, also provided with Essentially, and there is a lot of dialogue and exchange l
between them, performance l
I l
provides the i
cited an example:
If
l a.
i o.
31 and award forms for on November and called on form.
told amount on, form form (so that
).
During their interviews, both emphatically denied that they had either written their own appraisals or fi.11ed in the amounts - on the cash award forms.
Two other employees, confirmed explanation as to the manner in which prepares performance appraisals.
l (Attachments 4, 5,
8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31.)
Alleaation 3:
Imorocer Droegdures followed in orant of cerformance award l.
At the conclusion of the FY 87 rating period (i.e.,
shortly l
(.
after October 1,
1987),
1 (i.e.,
)
for complied with this 1
In view, an award could not then be given to This was because had not as yet signed performance elements and standards for the FY 87 rating period.
understanding was that, before an award can be given l
based upon performance during a
particular
- period, the l
performance elements and standards for that period must be in
1 32 place for 120 days..
When the Office of Personnel received the
- papers, it notified of the 120-day requirement.
thereupon The and received the HQI.
believes that the (made while was on leave) should Apparently, however, Personnel thought the reason assigned for the request to the meritorious.
That reason was that performance elements and standards for the FY 87 rating period were the same as those for the prior year.
- Moreover, it was failure to discharge own responsibilities that produced this situation.
As will be later seen in the discussion of Allegation 5, this was not the only occasion upon which failed to perform on a timely basis-in the area of (Attachments 4, 10, 22, 23, 32, and 33.)
Allecation 4:
" cavalier" with orant of cerformance awards In
- view, In addition, believes that there is is
" demoralized by the whole thing."
With one exception, none interviewed L
managers and employees shared that perception.
The exception, the confidential source, opined that there was one abuse of l
\\
33
-the incentive awards program:
in view, any award received by "was an abuse by definition."
In this connection, referred to the incident where put in for an award and signed the papers.
, stated that deemed it to be part of Insofar as concerned claim that approximately 80 percent of the staff received awards on the basis of the last rating period, noted that a number of the awards were initiated by the (Attachments 8, 10, 18, 20, 22, and 23.)
i Allecation 5:
Preoaration of Derformance elements and standards This allegation is curious in that it relates to a failure on own part, had l
l l
L Because and preoccupation - with the move to White
- Flint, failed to carry out that task at any time during l
that' year.
As a consequence, the affected employees could not l
l receive their ratings at the end of the rating period but had to 1
wait an additional 120 days.
Although was not formally admonished for l
oversight, subsequent to detail to another office
34 found in the files a note written by that construed as being critical of failure to carry out the assignment.
This was kind of backdooring note prompted complaint that "
me."
For
-part, stated that did not blame the oversight on because "we should have monitored it and made sure that did job."
(Attachments 8 and 33.)
A11ecation 6:
Travel abuse on the cart of As part of office
" scuttlebutt",
heard comments about
, relatives, primarily in Regions and believed that tended to offices more than in others because area and cited an example of a
telephone conversation with a member of the Region staff:
Staff member:
"Oh, went through here."
"Is that where is?"
Staff member "Yes.
I guess wanted to see
. 12 12 The record reflects that account on this issue is contradictory and vague.
As the interview continues, says of the conanent: "just kind of anybody in could say that and probably has...any of the but I cannot attribute it to any specific person, because I think probably everybody, and I am sure that I have said it."
The record also reflects a conflict between and other staff members regarding this issue.
35 said had no idea where was at the time, has also heard loose talk around the office tnat has to because "
needs to see knows visits on some of business-related trips, because
,has talked about it.
had no recollection of time periods or dates for to Regions and recalled, however, that, although in 1982-1983 beginning in 1984 travels took According to
" people.
started noticing and people started making comments."
Although had not conducted opined that it would and than to did not think and was are so observed that was involved in "some pretty hot stuff" in and that was'of the same importance as issues at
(
) and
(
).
Further, it was perception that all of the acknowledged, however, that has no direct knowledge of matters affecting operations and is not involved in the of the office, t
36 was particularly concerned that, in January 1989, asked to in-Arlington, Texas for sometime between mid-February and mid-March.
informed that Several days later, overheard tell someone that at the same time that would be there.
said that "this is strictly circumstantial but it just kind of clicked."
A full week was set aside for the training.
Monday and Friday were travel days; the actual training occurred on Tuesday l
through Thursday.
After they arrived in Dallas, informed 1
that noted that and
(
) attended the first day of the session, stayed until noon, and then left, presumably to go to the Regional Office:
further time with us."
to us for a couple of hours about This was just about the time that and told us all knew about it.
And that took quite some time."
saw
" possibly Thursday.
at had no knowledge of or why wanted it to be held in preferred to It appeared strange to that an would
I i
37 with to do so, although did not know if is
" qualified to call it abuse."
on that score, said is not aware of any personnel abusing travel.
Current travel. expenses are the same as they have been in the past.
- Lastly, considered the possibility that "did not realize how this could be perceived by somebody who did not know what was going on. "
does not inform about travel plans.
is no longer involved in these matters:
"There was a period of time when-but I have been cut out of that."
(Attachment 28.)
denied the allegation that and-specifically and to With respect to Region in the recalled only one occasion, several years ago, upon which flew from Region to to visit picked up at the airport, visited with them, and then flew out of to Whenever and does something of a
personal
- nature, pays the addit.ional costs and the information.is reflected in voucher.
For example, was in on official business, took leave, and drove a rental car to checked it in at the
38 and paid the mileage and any other costs associated with it, also denied that Over.the years, have about the and to some extent In fact, in Regions and because Region
,- for instance, The in Region has historically been involved in a
lot of investigations.
A week before interview, staff member traveled there concerning a
matter that and in fact, was to be discussed at
~
In addition, frequently
, which were quite extensive.
According to travel is and-other considerations.
For example, explained that,'when will send
. and they will be there for a in advance: "
for day or two, the two days.
,n In addition, It is also view that Concerning the allegation that for
. = -
~ _ -
39
. the training session in order to stated:
"Quite candidly, I did not even know that was going to be there."
was that it'would enable was expecting to attend regarding and to meet with
- Also, was to meet with to f
of that region.
The planning and 1
timing arra,ngements were dictated principally by confirmed that attended the opening l-session of the, training program and that spent a - couple of hours with (Attachment 33.)
had no knowledge of improper conduct by involving travel.
but was not aware of using government resources to visit them.- As a former has accompanied on including They also went to on a case.
On these occasions,.the' travel was always 'in the course ~ of official business.
Concerning travel to Region stated that "I wouldn't see in the evenings But during the day was with me in the office and we were doing work."
confirraed that-
..----A-
--A----.
'J 2,,,,,II In hIJ 40 also and (Attachment 20.)
According to many people at,some point combine a business trip with some personal matter.
- However, was not aware of any travel by or for purposes other than official business, i.e.,
in order to visit friends or relatives.
In
- view, travel l
is strictly a management decision:
"is if doesn't get it done, the one r
decides to get the job done."
On those occasions where has has never seen do anything abusive.
- Also, did not recall ever going to visit while they were on a business trip.
confirmed that many of opined that, had reasons for travel to specific regions are justified.
Regions and have had problems.
observed that went to Region on
- to determine In addition, according to Three to four years ago,
~
3 41 The 1
So has made several trips to-
~ t to These cases are ongoing.
In view,.
has consistently taken a very personal interest in assuring the success of that and similar operations.
'(Attachment 21.)
travel as does who is very proficient in matters.
Depending on their individual workloads,
-has always traveled a good deal",.according to Last year was.
a.
good example.-
concerning the allegation that frequently travel to specific regions, said the charge was
. preposterous.
In
- view, is ethical: "
when I do
- vouchers, reviews them-and if I am one penny off, is
-very upset wants to be very exact. "
confirmed said on this
- note, confirmed a trip in which deducted the costs associated with personal use of a rental car.
~.
1 42 Regarding the training session and alleged attended the session but became ill and' returned home one day early.
spent most of the first day. with them at the session, as did wanted to and to the issue so In addition, had some was not aware if visited during that time frame, added that did not think it was ne::essary for
(
) to go, but
" felt certainly that (Attachment 23.)
attributed animosity toward to the fact that was "not playing hard ball" with and was
~
"not telling (
j the secrets of the. of fice. "
explained that
'was particularly. concerned about whereabouts and wanted to keep informed: "
would always ask me 'where is
'is on leave'; 'did go home';
'where is I would never tell anything And then would go tell that is not i
cooperating and is not keeping staff informed."
asked if was should inform about personal activities, instructions to were " absolutely not."
(Attachment 31.)
- The confidential source (CS) described the allegation regardin'g travel abuse by as " outrageous, especially if I
G I
43 assume it's from who has no operational knowledge _ of the office at all. "
CS doubted whether a review of travel records could sustain such an assertion, because travels to (Region
)
almost as frequently as CS has accompanied on travel and there are legitimate reasons for this:
"They don't include is
- person, works on the airplane, is not a party-goer at all in the evenings, just willing to say if there's a rental car, 'here's the car, do what you want.
I'm staying in, not a real on the road, boring to travel with."
According to.CS, Region is the most " screwed-up region" in the NRC as a' region, not as a cited and the With respect to Region until the end of the year.
This was because of the like the the and CS regarded these as CS also had knowledge that
. currently, is involved in a in
.Thus, it is to be there.
Finally, CS is aware that adheres to all of the travel regulations and records are well documented in this regard.
(Attachment 22.)
l
ji'.
44
.A11ecation 7:
Frecruent travel of had no direct knowledge regarding the allegation that is frequently out of the of fice on travel.
heard staff R
~ making comments such as is not there, is or' travel again".
knew that
. had ordered to stay in the office and to assume also heard that was unhappy about absences from the office, but did not know if
- Moreover, did.not know if travel was for purposes of official business.
(Attachment 8.)
acknowledged that probably travels more than any this matter with on more than one occasion and.
in "
things as opposed to working cases."
is that have more experience than others.
In addition, there are some things would rather do than have other staff members do.
said this is not a new problem.
and have personally addressed this concern with added that travel is official business-related, and is not aware of any alleged misconduct or impropriety by in this regard.
(Attachment 33.)
confirmed that there
.had been some concern on the part of and regarding extensive travel.
During the first two years
i 45 that was in
- position, spent a significant amount of time conducting
.'3 At went to Region specifically to conduct an analysis of travel records..
exercised more control in this area.,
At one point, unless had to do so.
Within this last
- year, travel activities have been curtailed considerably, added that a review of travel records would reflect this reduction.
(Attachment 34.)
A11ecation 8:
Security oroblems at In essence, this allegation has little to do with
- any possible misconduct on the part of personnel.
- Rather, laajor complaint is that the physical setup at
.i is not conducive to the maintenance of adequate security measures for files.
More specifically, is particularly concerned with the space limitations that require the storage of the records of in boxes stacked on the floor in open areas.
also is troubled by the fact that the telephone conversations cannot.be conducted in private.
In
- opinion, been much more 13 has been for approximately
46 from to The only assertion relating to security matters within control involved According to failed on some occasions to at the end of the day open material.
denied any dereliction of duty in that regard.
pointea out that, when leaves for the day at p.m.,
if other employees will Interviews of other personnel.provided no substantiation of charges against
- Moreover, acknowledged that the open files are now being properly secured.
(Attachments 8,
20, 23, 31,-and 33.).
A11eaation 9:
Asserted destruction of comouter recorts This allegation rested upon in January 1989 at Headquarters, to discard one computer report that had generated.
The report purported to show the length of time that reports prepared in remained in for review.
In the view of
- ~ "-
47 the report was very misleading and did not serve the purpose for which it had been commissioned.
In this connection, none of the interviewed attendees at the meeting recalled stating that the report should be destroyed to avoid OIA obtaining it (as claimed by To the contrary, the interviewees stressed that the reason for discarding it was simply the consensus that it was a poor report.
(Attachments 8, 20, 21, 33, and 34.)
A11eaation 10:
and dereliction of duty According to and spend considerable amounts of time outside of the office yet work large amounts of paid overtime.
In this regard, claimed that, on one occasion, they went together to the to pick up tickets at approximately 1:30 or 2:00 p.m., and did not return to the office before left at 4:45 p.m.
also asserted that often took long lunch hours during which Still further, maintained that their workloads did not justify overtime, was very vague respecting the number of occasions, and datos, upon which and were allegedly absent from the office without justification.
In any event, denied claims other than to concede that they had made infrequent joint trips to the travel agency (
..n
,.u-i.,_,-.-.--.-.
=.
o s,,
48
).
of them would pick up the tickets while the other remained in the automobile; immediately thereafter, they returned to the office.
No other interviewee, including offered any support to allegation.
Insofar as overtime is concerned, acknowledged that
(
)
performs substantial overtime in the evening and, occasionally,
(
) comes in at 6:00 in the morning.
explained that it was necessary and approved by their supervisors (
).
Other staff members similarly expressed the opinion that a
performed overtime was justified.
(Attachments 8, 20, 21, 23, 28, 31,.and 33.)
Allecation 11:
Imoroner maintenance of case files i
This allegation charges with the improper maintenance of active case files.
More specifically, based more on what ostensibly was told by others than on own observations, claims that observed that, apart from no employee had ever complained about the state of the files maintained by Moreover, an informal inquiry of several employees disclosed that those individuals encountered no problems with the files.
(Attachments 4, 8,
31, and 33.)
9 e
-w
49 II.
ANALYSIS As clearly appears from the foregoing Statement of Facts, at the center of this investigation is an who harbors an extreme personal and/or professional dislike for alike in that office.
(In the case of it has resulted in the public expression of a hope that would be killed in an aircraf t accident.)
It is also manifest that that dislike is at the root of submission of a wide variety of charges against a number of those
- many of which charges are, to say the 3 east, as bizarre as they are of dubious merit.
For example, allegation 1 would have it that there likely was a
causal relationship between (3) the possibility that' would file a
grievance respecting performance l
appraisal and (2) receipc of a high quality increase on recommendation.
If true, that allegation doubtless would reflect adversely upon and as well.
But it l
would also bring into serious quention whether should now be permitted to retain the HQI.
In this connection, I havt I
been led to understand that such an award can be rescinded if it was improperly conferred (i.e.,
if it was prompted by considerations other than the quality of the individual's on-the-job performance).
Thus, allegation 1 was assuredly contrary to pecuniary self-interest, as distinguished from i
T l
nv-~
m
50 possible interest in getting into trouble.
Even more putr. ling is allegation 5.
It reflects a very serious dereliction of duty on the part of during the entire rating period (FY 88) at the conclusion of which received the HQI.
As a consequence of failure for a full
~
year to carry out delegated responsibility those empicyees could not receive performance ratings at the end of the rating period or for 120 da',-
thereafter.
One might have thought that who escaped even an admonition, would have been most reluctant to bring attention to a situation that scarcely put in a good light.
Apparently,
- however, animus toward is so substantial that was prepared to bare own shortcomings in order to advance a not merely trivial, but wholly frivolous, complaint against While may have been offended by the critical note that is said to have put in the files, in the circumstances has no ground for objection.
Indeed, once again, is fortunate that no disciplinary action was taken against particularly inasmuch as the af fected employees could have been (and possibly were) seriously prejudiced by their inability to obtain timely performance ratings.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the totality of circumstances I
felt constrained to call upon to investigate thoroughly each and every one of scatter-
o i
51 gun allegations.
With the possible exception of allegation 1, I
j do not believe that any of them has been substantiated.
- Indeed,
]
for the most part, the allegations do not rest upon concrete information in possession, obtained through personal i
observation or otherwise.
Rather, with few exceptions, they are 1
founded upon nothing more than non-compelled inferences drawn by from uncertain facts.
Moreover, in some instances, has far exceeded the 1
bounds of propriety given position and area of responsibility in For example, it is not function to pass close l
judgment upon whether the authorized overtime and trips to a travel agency of are justified (allegation 10).
To be sure, all NRC employees may 1
have an obligation to bring to light instances of probable fraud, j
waste or abuse that have come to their attention.
But that obligation does not carry with it a license to substitute one's own judgment for that of higher ranking personnel with regard to such matters as whether overtime work was required on certain occasions or whether are performing their jobs satisfactorily and warrant performance 1
awards (allegation 2).
At the very least, an employee prepared to question the judgment of supervisors in areas of that nature through the vehicle of. a complaint to an Inspector General (or equivalent) should have a much better evidentiary foundation than was able to present to In short, except with respect to allegation 1, I am prepared
52 to credit fully the responses to allegations that were given by the other m :erviewees -- many of whom appeared to ba wholly disinterested witnesses.
On the basis of the investigative record as a whole, I am satisfied that hostility toward fellow employees, rather than any hard evidence of wrongdoing, was at the foundation of presentation of the allegations.
In addition, one portion of allegation 8 can be dismissed out-of-hand.
- Surely, contrary view notwithstanding, there is no basis for a serious complaint that should have more forcefully protested the move of Turning to allegation 1, the record is unclear as to whether the award of a HQI to was influenced in whole or in part by a desire to head off filing of a grievance.
But it does seem quite plain
- that, whatever may have been the motivation, the award itself was unjustified to the point of constituting a gross abuse of the performance award program.
To reach this conclusion I
am not required to second-guess discretionary determinations of based on a familiarity with work that I lack.
Rather, all I need do is point to the undisputed facts gleaned in the course of this investigation.
Leaving aside the matter of the failure over the period of a full year to discharge a particularly important assignment, there seems to be little doubt that interpersonal relationships have long boon, and continue to be, destructive of I
l
,,st
[
53 a good working environment within and, as such, have a decided
~
adverse impact upon the. ef fectiveness of the discharge of general functions In this P
i connection, I find it astounding that a person occupying such a
[
position would not readily appreciate the imperative need to get I
along well with his or her associates.
Be that as it may, one who disclaims the existence of such a
- need, is abrasive in t-dealing with co-workers, and goes so far as to express openly a desire that become the victim of a fatal accident, is scarcely,a fit candidate for a performance award of any kind.
is, of
- course, not the target of this investigation.
I thus am not, concerned directly with the question of whether any personnel action involving might be appropriate.
Rather, my point here is simply that, no matter what prompted it, the HQI given reflected unacceptable managerial judgment and made a mockery of the established criteria for the award of HQIs.
There is yet another disclosure connected with performance of duties that brings the quality of the into question.
As noted in the Statement of Facts,
_u did not fault for failing to carry out the because "we should have monitored it and made sure that did job."
I can fully agree that the was most remiss in
=
failing, over a period of a full year, to make certain that the for a significant group of officials n
.'m-._
.<t
$4 and employees were in place (as presumably required by office of Personnel Management regulations).
But I am equally persuaded that the justification given by for not blaming is absurd.
A Grade employee should be held accountable for carrying out assignments even if his or her supervisor fails to monitor the progress of the particular assignment.
I appreciate that dealing with an employee possessing attitude towards work and associates poses considerable problems for management officials.
Up to a point, I s
therefore can sympathize with Nonetheless, in my view there are decided limits to the extent that may legitimately give effect to the old adage "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."
In this instance, those limits were vastly exceeded.
And the potential harm of the seeming desire to pacify is significant.
The assault upon the integrity of the performance award program is only a part of it, of equal significance is the consideration that the conferral of the award l
l on necessarily sent entirely the wrong signal to other employees and most likely had a deleterious effect on morale.
This is a factor that should have been, but apparently was not, taken into ac. count by (or by notwithstanding recognition that was a
problem creator rather than solver).
As noted in the Statement of Facts, p.
19 suora, stated that was told by that had not merely failed to comply with an instruction to send certain award i
packages to Personnel for processing but had misrepresented that I
had done so.
Is this the kind of conduct that will support a l
.c i e.,
55 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated
- above, I
conclude that (1) as presented by none of allegations is substantiated by the fruits of the investigation; and (2) in the circumstances as disclosed by the fruits of the investigation, the award of a high quality increase to earlier in this fiscal year represented a significant abuse of the performance award program for which should be held accountable.
Respectfully submitted, hg kGttad Alan S. Rosenthal July 3, 1989 performance award?
One other observation is warranted.
As I understand it, an HQI may be awarded on the strength of an " excellent" performance rating.
The fact that received such a rating for the FY 88 rating period cannot serve to justify HQI.
For one thing, the rating does not automatically entitle an employee to an HQI.
For another, in the circumstances the " excellent" rating is itself suspect.
.