By Ken Snyder
Once I knew that DOL wasn't going to answer my questions, I was curious as to just how much investigating they had really done on my case. I knew they asked to interview people, but what about all the evidence I provided? Had they really looked into it, and asked about how BPU could say I was a "poor performer" yet was able to complete all the work I listed? Once I got a copy of the file through the Freedom of Information Act, which arrived on 9 April, a lot of my questions were answered.
Most of the file (and it is a rather large one) is copies of items I either have sent to them or received from them. But there are some items that stood out:
I found it rather interesting that everything I sent to the Ethics Administrator wound up in a "confidential file" at BPU and that BPU elected not to send that with my "full and unedited" copy, yet shared it with their lawyers and sent it to the DOL investigator.
It's also interesting to note that there were comments I made to the DOL investigator that should have clued him in to something amiss: I told him that the file I received only had 17 pages and said nothing about being terminated -- all that information was in the "confidential" section only HE received.
One of the first letters from the BPU's attorney to the DOL investigator mentions (after the 26 March evaluation) that "two additional incidents occurred ... traffic signals he had worked on failed in the field or malfunctioned." The only "failure or malfunction" I am aware of is the 28 May incident, and as I have said before, I never left an intersection before any malfunctions were repaired. Also note: the DOL investigator never asked me about this statement.
Also, once I got the FOIA copy (and saw the "confidential file" not provided to me) I finally see where BPU has my "separation form." What's interesting to note is that while the "March 26" and April 27 evaluations are date-stamped by BPU's HR department on the same day Clark signs them, the last signature on my separation form is 15 July, yet it isn't stamped by HR as "received" until 13 August. NOTE: 13 August is after I had already sent DeLeon two requests for my personnel file.
The next notable item is another letter from BPU's attorneys, along with, of all things, Dunn's evaluations (even though they're redacted, it's obvious as to whose they are) and excerpts from BPU's computerized pay system. Again, they make emphasis on "personal cell phone use" yet offer no evidence as to how it could have been "excessive" by comparing it to others in the shop. It's interesting to note that 1) Mr. Dunn only received two evaluations during his probationary period and witnessed them both to my three, one of which I would have never known about had it not been for the DOL investigator, and 2) neither of his evaluations are date-stamped by HR -- were they really done on the dates indicated (which is also redacted) or done like my "26 March" evaluation? I noticed that while my last evaluation has each comment area filled in as full as possible and even has an additional comment sheet, Mr. Dunn's evaluations have one comment between the two of them.
Clark comments that he became the "direct supervisor" on 1 April. They asked cursory questions about the 21 June evaluation. He says DeGraeve made out the evaluation -- why then didn't DeGraeve sign it? Clark also admits that the comment sheet was made out on 21 June, therefore admitting I was never offered a chance to refute the comments made on it. This also goes right past the DOL investigator.
The rest of the interviews have the person giving the statement redacted. However, DeGraeve's statement is obvious, as he makes comments (that aren't redacted) giving him away. Nowhere in his questioning does he mention anything about the FIVE new signal control cabinets I assembled, tested, labeled and prepared for installation during my time at BPU -- nor does the investigator bring up any of the other items I worked on and that I gave the investigator a list of. DeGraeve says 'I can pretty much remember everything' yet he seems ready to leave out all the specific projects I worked on and focus on negative incidents.
BPU's attorney sent the DOL investigator a copy of the second page of the evaluation form. Click here to open a copy of the file.
The instructions are clear as posted at the top of the form:
1. PROBATION - Review each probationary employ every 30 days (emphasis added).
Later, in the form:
EMPLOYEE - Complete Section C "Employee Comments." (emphasis added)
Neither of these happened. Mistake, or display of their lack of integrity? I'll let you be the judge of that -- but remember, no one but me was disciplined to the extent that I was (terminated).
My Responses To The Interviews:
Clark (statement here):
DeGraeve (statement here):
Castle (statement here - NOTE: although the names are redacted their responses give them away):
Sisson(statement here - NOTE: although the names are redacted their responses give them away):
Dunn (statement here - NOTE: although the names are redacted their responses give them away):
General Notes:
The Final Word On Phone Calls:
Over and over, comments are made about my personal cell phone use. I made a complete listing from my cell phone statements, the information taken from these statements showed in slightly under 110 work days I had 48 calls either from or to other traffic signal technicians or to BPU itself. There were 18 days I had no phone activity at all, and on six days my phone use was with other signal technicians exclusively. Overall, my calls average three a day (including BPU-related calls) -- is that excessive? Is it excessive compared to the working foreman or the two senior signal technicians? On this argument I'd take my chances with a jury, and I'd like to see how DeGraeve, Sisson and Castle's records compare.
The comment was made that my phone would ring during the morning meeting. Given a standard 8:00AM to 8:30AM morning meeting (I don't believe the meetings ever went longer than 30 minutes) my records show my phone actually had a call answered six times, and four times between 8:30AM and 9:00AM -- and only three were school-related. I distinctly remember Sisson's phone ringing far more times -- and comments were made that they were getting calls from a Unified Government (Kansas City, Kansas/Wyandotte County) Traffic Engineer who was not one of DeGraeve's favorites (see the fourth paragraph of Learning The Ropes), one Sisson seemed to be more willing to do work for than he was to do work for DeGraeve.
Between the reaction of BPU's "Ethics Committee" to my situation (already reported) and this file, it's my opinion that integrity at BPU is nonexistent.
Next: Unanswered Questions
To return to the index page, click here.
