Time Since 8 July 2010:

Years

Days

Hours

Mins

Secs

Click here to see more about these counters

ADVICE REGARDING USERRA VIOLATIONS - CLICK HERE!

168 Days: Ethics, Part 2

By Ken Snyder

Just to refresh your memory -- from the original "Ethics?" page:

As of the time I originally wrote this page (7 January 2011) I had not heard any more regarding the Ethics Commission's investigation.

UPDATE (1/23/2011): I sent an e-mail to the Ethics Administrator, asking if I could meet with him and relate information gathered since I sent him the packet. His response was that he knew that this was being investigated by the Department of Labor and would not "intervene" and forwarded my e-mail to the UG legal counsel and DeLeon for their comments. We'll see what becomes of this.

Which brings us to what I read today (2/16/2011):
Ethics – plural noun (from Dictionary.com):
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) A system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. Moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

From what I've come to understand, and from the reaction of certain people, it's apparent we have two seemingly different things we're talking about. There's ethics, and then there's BPU ethics. Ethics, as listed above, would appear to be applied to all equally. However, BPU ethics only apply to the employee side -- you know: who gives you a gift, who you're related to, and where you sleep. It's perfectly OK for BPU to conduct "secret evaluations," base judgments on these evaluations, not reveal anything about these evaluations and ultimately fire someone based on these evaluations -- all that's perfectly OK.

The more I see regarding BPU's "ethics commission" the more I believe they are someone's good intention that has been infected by the same "look the other way" mentality as the rest of the people involved in my termination. Lately they have began an inquisition into employees related to other employees. However, bring FACTS to them about something happening right under their nose and all they can do is forward it right back up the same chain that gave birth to it in the first place -- and we've already seen how they have dealt with this. Here's my proof:

• E-mail from BPU Ethics Administrator, referenced above:
  I'd be happy to meet with you, Ken, but I'm not sure why. My understanding is your case is now on appeal to the Dept of Labor, and absent any information--supported by proof--that officials at BPU have not followed proper procedure in processing your case, or have violated the BPU Ethics Policy in handling your case, I'm not going to intervene in the appeal. I'm copying Sam DeLeon on this email, as well as Chief Counsel Jody Boeding, as maybe they have some thoughts in addition to mine.
  Great! He's sending it to one of the people responsible for this fiasco (like he'll give an honest opinion on it.......) as well as the Unified Government's Chief Counsel (someone I do not know, but is a long-time UG employee) -- that'll get a lot done.
• Reply back to this e-mail:
  My side of the story to date can be read at: www.kensnyderonline.com/168days
  I can show you proof of everything I say on these pages. There are questions as to how an evaluation I never saw, never signed and was not even documented (as the other two had been) by HR wound up in my personnel file.
  It would be interesting to know exactly what BPU's policy _is_ regarding evaluations, up to and including how they are maintained in personnel files.
• Response to this from BPU Ethics Administrator: silence.
• Fast forward to 16 February 2011 -- minutes from December BPU Ethics Commission Meeting:
  Chair Hutton welcomed Mr. Kenneth Snyder to the meeting, asked him to state his name for the record, and to ask any questions he might have concerning the business of the Ethics Administrator, Ethics Commission, or the BPU Ethics Program. Mr. Snyder asked how a complaint was received, and Chair Hutton replied that witnesses called the telephonic hotline, wrote up a complaint on the form presented on the website and mail it, or by sending Mr. Manske an email, or by simply approaching an Ethics Commissioner and lodging the complaint orally, but regardless of how a complaint gets to Mr. Manske, once he gets it an investigation is conducted. Mr. Manske added that once he gets a complaint he prepares a report on an Ethics Complaint Form, and he removes the name of the complaining witness from the form and sends a copy to Don Gray, and then appoints a person at BPU to conduct an investigation. Mr. Snyder then asked if it was a requirement to notify the complaining witness once an investigation was completed and what was the result, and Mr. Manske answered that was an absolute requirement, and either he or the person who was appointed to conduct the investigation would report back the results and Mr. Manske would report that to the Ethics Commission. Mr. Manske stated that the reason that he had not yet received a report back was his investigation was still pending. (underline added by KS)
  So, while ethics complaints are supposed to be handled anonymously, they pretty much admit in their minutes that I have filed an ethics complaint. That'll help.
• Now we're up to 2 March 2011 -- 2010 Annual Ethics Report:
  Employee Termination
  Complaint alleged that he was terminated from employment at BPU for unethical reasons. Preliminary investigation reveals that the employment of the complaining witness was terminated during his probationary period, and that no improprieties were discovered in the handling of his case. His termination has been appealed to the U.S. Dept of Labor, and pending that decision, the matter will either be re-opened for further investigation or closed with no action taken.
  "No improprieties were discovered"? No wonder -- you had the people responsible for this crap take a look at it, what other decision would they make?
  By the way, I never heard anything back from the Ethics Commission - ever.

One thing's for sure: you have BPU ethics, and then you have integrity. The first only applies to how employees treat the BPU, and when it comes to BPU, the second doesn't seem to exist.

Next: Next Chapter
To return to the index page, click here.