ML20129G769
| ML20129G769 | |
| 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 9610030142 | |
| Download: ML20129G769 (5) | |
Text
. . - . . . _ . . . -- . . - - - . - _ _ - --
i 1
REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH LORI M. STEINMETZ j On June 15, 1995, STEINMETZ was interviewed by the reporting investigator.
The interview was conducted under oath at the New York Power Authority (NYPA),
123 Main Street, White Plain:,, NY. STEINMETZ provided the following information:
STEINMETZ was represented during the interview by NYPA attorney Anty LEVINE.
4 STEINMETZ stated that it was her desire to have LEVINE represent her and was under no pressure from her management.
STEINMETZ graduated from Montclair State University in with a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology. She was hired by NYPA ilt Ap 11 1989 as an
/)
/
i Employee Relations Specialist. She is currently a Senior Employee Relations l
Specialist. Her supervisor is John B0PP. Prior to July 1994, her supervisor was Karen CARUS 0.
STEINMETZ was first questioned regarding Ulrich WITTE, the former NYPA Manager of Configuration Management. STEINMETZ recal-1s that WITTE's supervisor, Alan ETTLINGER met with Karen DONAHUE in 1993, regarding performance problems that he was having with WITTE. STEINMETZ explained that she was aware of that She because of her posi, tion as a Senior Employee Relations Specialist.
recalls that ETTLINGER reported that WITTE had problems with: 1) his NYPA s American Express .ard; 2) communication and interpersonal skills; 3) meeting H schedules; and 4) issuing status reports. STEINMETZ counseled ETTLINGER that ,$
he should meet with WITTE on regular basis, and develop a performanceShe j3 improvement plan for WITTE. 1% !
was given mid cycle reviews as a result of his 1993 rating) he was upgraded to ag
" Meets Expectations." ,
zu M$d
]i STEINMETZ recalled that in November 1994, Hugh GILMARTIN told her that he was 1ab .
promoted to new position at NYPA, and that WITTE would i ';
3 m,repo with WITTE.
GILMARTIN told her that ETTLINGER (WITTE's previous supervisor) told him that WITTE had a number of past due expense reports, some.;dating fj g b over one year. GILMARTIN told her that when he (GILMARTIN) got them from apa WITTE he became concerned due to the lack of documentation, andSTEINMETZ documentation Q 2. E that WITTE submitted in support of the travel was questionable. :;Je said that she recommended that GILMARTIN bring those concerris to NYPA Audit STEINMETZ made the initial call to BRENNAN, Department Director, Joe BRENNAN. Af ter that, she and GILMARTIN met with and told him of GILMARTIN's concerns.
BRENNAN, who felt that it was appropriate for his group to further review WITTE's expense claims. STEINMETZ said that BRENNAN told them that there were GILMARTIN also enough " red flags" where he felt it needed to be looked at. told he STEINMETZ said that WITTE came to her with his concerns regarding his 1994 P _ d
')
wru , n- n, n
}g
/
Fi.:.1 l. ? } Fr. M. _ . ..
g oo g 2 96o91e ,
t10RGAN96-359 PDR I
. i i .
i
)
l performance review (done by GILMARTIN who rated WITTE as Does Not Meet
- Expectations). She said that WITTE wanted the NYPA Human Resources Group She i
(HRG) to review his performance review, because he was not happy with it. t said that WITTE did not want to discuss his 1994 review with his supervisors,STEIN ,
j WITTE wanted to have an independent review it. l unusual for employees to bring their performance problems to the HRG, because NYPA does not have a formal grievance process.
' STEINMETZ said that Witte wanted time to prepare his rebuttal to Shethe review, spent i and that several weeks later she got WITTE's written rebuttal. ,
l time reviewing it, and met with WITTE on at least two occasions to go over the t j
STEINMETZ said
- rebuttal so she could be clear on what WITTE's issues were.
that WITTE wanted her to look into the six or seven items (in the review) he perceived as harassment and intimidation for raising safety issues. '
i STEINMETZ said that she has found no'information She has found no that would evidence to substantiate
! WITTE's clains that his review was harassment. STEINMETZ said show that WIT 1 's 1994 performance review was. hot justified. i
', that she has since reviewed Corporate Security Director John HAHN's report on WITTE's harassment allegations, and that his report findings are consistent i
with her findings.
Regarding WITTE's question on how his performance coul ,
i that the nuclear department rated its people too highly.STEINMETZ said that she based 3 reviews needed to be more critical and honest.
her findings, in part, on WITTE not including his 1992 review as part of his argument that his job performance could not have declined so rapidly.
STEINHETZ noted that a lot of the issues that were cited in the 1992 rev were also cited 'in 1994 review.
STEINMETZ was also questioned regarding Fire Protection (FP) Engineer Andrew BARTLIK.
STEINMETZ retrieved her file on BARTLIK, which showed that BARTLIK's supervisor, Frank BLOISE contacted Karen DONAHUE (HRG) on July 6,1994.
STEINMETZ's file contained a copy DONAHUE's notes INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE:
of her meeting with BLOISE (attached).
STEINMETZ recalled that DONAHUE briefed her on the meeting with BLOISE. ,
STEINMETZ said that she (STEINMETZ) had a later conversation Some time with !
I document.ing BARTLIK's performance issues in the mid cycle r BARTLIK had raised, and the issue of BARTLIK's complaint (that his mid cycle STEINMETZ said that performance review was not justified) was put on hold.LEVINE was also at the meeting i she attended a meeting regarding BARTLIX.
which CAHILL told the meeting participants that he did not want even the STEINMETZ said that perception that any NYPA employees were being harassed.CAH i line, and a number of contractors were going to be let go, and they beganST ,
' raising a number of harassment claims.
l meeting participants that he did not know who was right or wrong in the IP3 FP i problems, but the decision was made at the meeting to have consultants look 2
Case No. 1-95-019
~
!" 1 u . A__;5 v. .. _,. )
~
into the technical issues, and BARTLIK's performance review was a secondary issue to that. STEINMETZ said that she had no further involvement in.
l ~
BARTLIK's job performance issues.
STEINNETZ added that her perception was that BLOISE had legitimate communication problem issues with BARTLIK, and she has not come across any ,
information that would change her mind on that.
Q hI Jeffrey A. Teator, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I O
9 l
1(-/y .
- 3 case . >-,S.oi, w . A _5_.
j July 6,1994
,f(,?*1lh Frank Bloise, Acting Fire Protection Engineer Manager (Nuclear Generation), came to see me about Andrew Bartlik, Sr. Fire Protection Engineer, who is having
. 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 on the Restructuring team.
-f Frank has been supervising Andy for about a year and a half. Frank feels that when he initially became Acting Manager, Andy was resentful because technically he was 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 fine technically and his productivity is up to par. His performance problems are in the area of communication, teamwork, and adaptability, and customer service.
Andy has made a lot of enemies among his co-workers. He has been banned from He
-p IP3 by some individuals. 'Ihe sites are complaining why can't he be controlled.
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 .
e decisions once made (decisions made by management, that is). His wayis always .
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 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 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 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 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 your opinion." Another recent incident involved how the JAF administration 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 would listen to him.
i - ~h . . .~ . .n j I
V . .. . - - - :
- l these issues, to no avail. He told occur, Andy y about that i He did not document any of theseca ycouns on his last review before review that was EE. and cited some of these performance ,
problei Frank will do an interim review on Andy with a DNME me.
rating haR l2LA W(.
I 4 .
5 I ' %
.\
I a
f
- m. **
- p- . ..
- h _ ~a
- ===,=e=..,====...,=~~..-
n c 4 M e -e n e.1 a , ;
.:.e. .