ML20129G763
| ML20129G763 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/18/1996 |
| From: | Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129E434 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-359 NUDOCS 9610030141 | |
| Download: ML20129G763 (4) | |
Text
. - . . - - - -. .- - .
'r ,
?.. .
i REPORT OF INTERVIEW .
WITH .
KAREN DONAHUE The On June IS, 1995, DONAHUE was interviewed by the reporting investigator.
interview was conducted under oath at the new York Power Authority,123 Main .
Street, White Plains NY. DONAHUE provided the following information:
DONAHUE' requested NYPA attorney Amy LEVINE to represent her during the interview. DONAHUE stated that she was under no pressure LEVINE from her management stated that she to have LEVINE represent her during the interview.
represented DONAHUE and NYPA during the interview.
He y /}/
DONAHUE w s born number i Her work number is 914- 87-31 .
Her home telephone nu er is
. In she graduated from 'Iona College with a Bachelor of Arts degree'in Psy hol gy.. She was hired by NYPA in April 198G as a Employee Relations She is currently a Human 7(f
' Coordinator in the Human Resources Group (HRG).
Resources Specialist, and her supervisor is Karen CARUSO.
DONAHUE was interviewed regarding a typed two page document (attached), dated DONAHUE July 6, 1994, with her signature appearing on the second page.DONAHUE stated that sh verified her signature on the second page.
has the handwritten notes of the July 6,1994, meeting with Frank BLOISE DONAHUE believes that BLOISE just stopped by her regarding Andrew BARTLIX.
office without an appointment. She said that it was her first contact with BLOISE.
She added that no one spoke to her prior to that regarding jo.b performance problems with BARTLIK. She said that she met with BLOISE one on DONAHUE stated that BLOISE told one, but does not recall how long it lasted.her that BARTLIK wasg resent I Supervisor, and that BARTLIK felt that he should have gotten that position. lis g
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: DONAHUE's notes indicate th'at BLOISE ]s y- told h that, "His work is fine technically and his productivity is up to par.
His performance problems are in theAndy areahasof made communication, a lot of enemies teamwork, ! and -5$
adaptability, and customer service."He has been banned from IP3 by sor.e go individ among his co-workers.
The sites are complaining why can't he be controlled."
yb 4
8%
E d5 Regarding " enemies," DONAHUE stated that BLOISE did not mention il BLOISE also did not any f name did not mention who had banned BARTLIK from IP3.
elaborate to her on what he meant by "why can't he be controlled," but her 3$E e- M sense is that BARTLIK tended to be sort of obnoxious, argumentative and not a , s teitm player. DONAHUE also added that BLOISE did not document the counselling j 3@@ 4 ,U sessions that he told her that he had with BARTLIK about his performance y ; ti s DONAHUE said that she had no reason to doubt what BLOISE told her, - "'
problems.
and that he was sincere in his concerns.
DONAHUE said that BLOISE told'her that he met with BARTLIK prior to coming to her and told BARTLIK of the potentf al for disciplinary action if improvement As indicated in her notes, BLOISE did not " mention termination did not occur.
specifically."
(_ _
9610030141 960918 fr- - __
[ _o
-s )
i Andy with a DNME (Does Not Meet Expectations) rating and re DONAHUE said that it is likely that she suggested that BLOISE do a mid cycle review, because HRG normally advises a manager to do that when a manager is -
having performance problems with an employee. DONAHUE added that she would not have suggest.ed what the rating should be, she leaves that up to the-supervisor.
DONAHUE does not specifically recall what action she took as a result of what l BLOISE told her, but offered.that, she would have reviewed it with Lori l STEINMETZ (HRG) and turned it over to her, because STEINMETZ was the lead person on performance issues. DONAHUC stated that she had no further involvement in this issue. 1 DONAHUE stated that her notes are an accurate representation of what BLOISE '
told her.
l Jeffrey A. Teator, Investigator l Office if Ipvestigations Field ye,RegionI ,
/
l r ) ' '
G l
l l
l l
\
\
g,3,go 1 95-019 2
, h ..
- 1. .
_.s+- _
j July 6,1994
~
l
,x( m i).
j Frank Bloise, Acting Fire Protection Engineer Manager (Nuclear Generation), came j to see me about Andrew Bartlik, Sr. Fire Protection Engineer, who is having i performance problems. Andy has been with the Power Authority for approximately
- five years. He previously worked in Quality Assurance for Schimpf.
Frank reports in to Gus Mavrikis. Jim Brunetti is acting 'for Gus now, since Gus is l on the Restructuring team.
! -f Frank has been supervising Andy for about a year and a half. Frank feels that when 1
he initially became Acting Manager, Andy was resentful because technically he was i'
stronger. However, it was known that Andy did not have people skills, so he was overlooked for this assignment.
Andy's work involves reviewing compliance with applicable regulations. His work is f fine technically and his productivity is up to par. His performance problems are in l
the area of communication, teamwork, and adaptability, and customer service.
b l Andy has made a lot of enemies among his co-workers. He has been banned from He 4
p IP3 by some individuals. 'Ihe sites are complaining why can't he be controlled.
i has developed a bad reputation for talking down to people, criticizing other people's work in an insensitive fashion, arguing points excessively, and not supporting l
6 decisions once made (decisions made by management, that is). His wayis always l
- the best. He argues about . things that are not black and white. Jack Brons at one point said about Andy,"Whydo we even hire people like this." Frank stated that l Andy needs to work on his negotiating skills. He refuses to compromise. Andy will complain to others about how an analysis was done, but then when asked to l 3 ocument d his concerns will say he has no time. ' He annoys people and deals in generics, not specifics.
Andy is very conservative in his approach. For instance, if the Code requires that l
i one sprinkler be installed, he willinsist that three is better. He feels that safety is
' being compromised when in reality it's not. But he fails to take into account the cost' l
to the Authority, so there are also some judgment issues. He is also very bold and
- politically incorrect. At a meeting with John Garrity, he had a difference of opinion
] with Garrity, and once John had stated his opinion, Andy said to John, "Well,that's j your opinion." Another recent incident involved how the JAF administration f building was to be classified. Steve Poplawski and everyone involved was in
- agreement that it should be classified as two stories plus a mezzanine. Andy insisted that it should be three, and complained to everyone involved, and anyone else who l would listen to him.
j i
1
)
I
(. - - ;
\
these issues, to no avail. He told Andy that ifim ,
I disciplinary action owld take place. (He did not mention term He did not document any of these counseling sessions. Frank gav his last review and cited some of these performance problems. He b review before that was EE.
Frank willdo an interim review on Andy with a DNME rating and rev .
M " 9$.
9 9
i
?
4 i
i
{%
j -
-_ g y*g =-== a5- m * '" "" ~
- ~
. . _ . .