Enough concerned citizens apparently have contacted UAB about my termination that President Carol Garrison ordered her PR machine into the fray.
Garrison might have been better served by leaving her clunky PR apparatus parked in the garage.
How did Garrison decide to deal with the heat she was receiving? Why, by making false and defamatory statements about the very employee her institution had wrongfully terminated.
You would think that someone with the letters "Ph.D." after her name would be smarter than that. You would think that someone with a background in nursing would have more sensitivity than that.
You would be wrong.
Garrison, of course, could not lower herself to trash me herself. So she assigned that duty to her PR hatchetman, Gary Mans.
A number of folks who had contacted UAB about my termination received canned replies late last week. Several of those folks were kind enough to share the responses with me.
Here is UAB's official reply from Gary Mans, speaking on Carol Garrison's behalf:
President Garrison asked that I respond to you. Contrary to Mr. Shuler's statements, his termination had nothing to do with politics or any conspiracy, and the university has not been contacted by any public official or representative of such about this matter. Mr. Shuler was dismissed based solely on his work performance. Because this is a personnel matter, we cannot comment further.
Gary Mans, Director
UAB Public Relations
For good measure, Mans went to the trouble of posting his reply as a comment to the Chronicle of Higher Education article about my termination. You can check out Mans' handiwork here. His comment is No. 16. The commenter at No. 17 promptly ripped Mans a new one. Excellent work by the Chronicle crowd. They don't suffer fools gladly.
Is Gary Mans careless, clueless, or spineless--or perhaps a little of all three. Is Carol Garrison in way over her head as the president of one of the top biomedical research institutions in the country? Does Carol Garrison allow herself to be pushed around by public officials of a certain political stripe? And does Carol Garrison let herself be pushed around by certain members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, who "manage" the UAB campus.
Let's examine the Garrison/Mans reply in some detail.
They say I was "dismissed based solely on [my] work performance."
Isn't that interesting? UAB's own employee grievance committee, which spent three-plus hours going over the details of my case, determined that I should not have been terminated at all.
As we reported here last Thursday, the grievance committee found that I was wrongfully terminated. We even presented the following written statement from Cheryl Locke, UAB's director of human resources: "The committee recommended that you be reinstated."
So Garrison/Mans say I was dismissed based solely on my work performance. A UAB grievance committee, which Garrison and Mans should be familiar with, says I should not have been terminated at all.
Bottom line? Garrison and Mans have gone out of their collective way to make a false statement that has damaged my reputation. And they have made sure it was distributed to numerous third parties. That's a serious civil wrong. A malicious civil wrong, I would say.
But that might be the least of UAB's problems. If my termination was the result of a conspiracy to commit fraud, and I will present evidence that it was, UAB personnel appear to be furthering that fraudulent scheme by use of the federal wires (sending messages via computer). That's dancing real close to federal-crime territory.
Of course, with a loyal Bushie such as Alice Martin serving as our area's U.S. attorney, no one at UAB has anything to worry about--for now. And given that Martin almost certainly played a role in getting me fired, UAB types probably are acting as her compliant compadres.
But if there is a God in heaven, Alice Martin will be out of office come early 2009. And given that she is being investigated by several federal entities, Ms. Martin might have some serious legal headaches of her own down the road.
UAB could be left with a real U.S. attorney, someone who might be interested in their actions regarding my termination--and a number of other interesting activities on the Southside over the past 10 years or so. Said U.S. attorney also might be interested in some interesting business activities involving one or two members of the University of Alabama Boad of Trustees.
Speaking of strange stuff on the Southside, here is something to chew on--straight from public records. UAB pays Gary Mans, its public-relations guru, $99,999.96 a year. The university pays his immediate superior, associate vice president Dale Turnbough, $200,000.40 a year. What does UAB pay one of its top history professors? Try $82,800. What does UAB pay one of its top English professors? Try $78,710.
Does UAB have its priorities in order or what? It pays two PR flacks a combined $300,000-plus a year. And yet highly accomplished professors of history and English, people with doctoral degrees and years of classroom and research experience, make barely half that, combined.
What does UAB get from its high-paid PR flacks? Well, we've already shown you Gary Mans' handiwork above. What about Dale Turnbough? Consider this paragraph from the Raw Story article about my firing:
When asked whether Shuler was fired for blogging, Turnbough wrote in an e-mail, "No, as I said before, that is inaccurate, but we cannot comment further on this personnel matter." (Sounds like Garrison and Mans didn't have any problem commenting further!)
How inept has UAB been in handling this situation? Gary Mans' office is on the 13th floor of the UAB Administration Building. Cheryl Locke's office is on the second floor of the same building. If you time the elevators right, you can get from Mans' office to Locke's office in under a minute. And yet, Mans could not be bothered to check with Locke before issuing a public statement regarding my firing--one that directly contradicts what Locke had already said.
And we mentioned spine earlier. If Carol Garrison insisted on making this statement regarding "work performance," wouldn't you think Mans might say something like, "You know, I don't think it's a good idea to say anything about his work performance, particularly when you consider that Dale Turnbough already has said we can't comment on a personnel matter?"
Of course, it would require some spine to say that to the president of the university. And I guess you have to pay more than $100,000 a year to get a PR guy with a spine.
So we have Gary Mans saying my termination had nothing to do with politics. And we have Dale Turnbough saying my termination had nothing to do with blogging.
Well, I have some evidence that suggests they are both wrong.
That is coming up next.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Neighbors Are Fussin' and Feudin' in Homewood, Alabama
Since a troublesome neighbor has caused me untold grief, I can't resist reading stories about other people and their neighbor troubles.
Psychologists might say that's not the healthiest approach to take. But I must confess to feeling the slightest tingle of delight when I read about someone else having to deal with a jackass next door.
If someone has been mugged, are they interested in stories about other muggings? Probably so.
With that in mind, I couldn't help but do some rubbernecking when I came upon a story today about a neighbor feud that resulted in three people being arrested and two dogs being shot. (I hate that part about the dogs being shot; one died and the other was injured.)
Guess where all this hubbub took place? In the tony Birmingham suburb of Homewood.
Now Homewood isn't tony as in Mountain Brook or Vestavia Hills tony. That's where truly wealthy people tend to congregate. But property values in Homewood are absurd, mainly because of its "good" (read predominantly white) school system. You can find a "cottage" in Homewood, with lots of "curb appeal," for, oh, about $350,000.
Pretty much the same house, probably bigger and in better shape, can be found in Birmingham's western section for about $85,000. Those neighborhoods have "bad" (read predominantly black) schools.
Anyway, back to the feudin' in Homewood. Seems that four recent college graduates moved in next door to a family on South Brook Circle. A father and son claimed the college grads had damaged the fence between the two homes. When officers arrived on the scene, two dogs (who looked like pit bulls) got loose from the college dudes (I'm assuming they are dudes), and police wound up shooting the animals.
This all happened on Saturday, but the feud was rekindled on Sunday--and that led to arrests. The father and son were arrested on misdemeanor menacing charges for being armed while confronting one of the dudes. The dude, in turn, was arrested on harassment charges because he threatened to get a gun and shoot the father and son.
Here's something interesting about the coverage in The Birmingham News. This clearly is public information, but no names were given in the story. If a similar event took place in a predominantly black neighborhood, I'm guessing names would have been used.
I've noticed this tendency to protect suburbanites before. Some years ago, the wife of a prominent restaurateur died in a mysterious fire at her Mountain Brook home. As I recall, the house was not destroyed or even damaged to a great degree. But somehow the woman managed to die in the fire--and very little was written about it.
About two years ago, a woman from Gardendale was killed in an automobile crash while driving south on Highway 280 to her job at Infinity Insurance. A northbound vehicle, almost certainly a resident from the southern suburbs, somehow managed to cross the median and hit the woman head on. I remember driving past the scene that morning and thinking it was the worst looking wreck I had ever seen on 280. The News never reported the name of the driver of the vehicle that struck the woman's car. And the paper never reported what caused the accident. My guess? Someone was talking on a cellphone.
As for events in Homewood, I'm guessing real-estate agents are already figuring out ways to take advantage of the feud. Imagine this ad for a small house on South Brook Circle:
"Charming fixer upper. 2 BR, 1 BA, carport, wooded lot. Lively, spirited neighbors. Never a dull moment in this desirable neighborhood!"
Psychologists might say that's not the healthiest approach to take. But I must confess to feeling the slightest tingle of delight when I read about someone else having to deal with a jackass next door.
If someone has been mugged, are they interested in stories about other muggings? Probably so.
With that in mind, I couldn't help but do some rubbernecking when I came upon a story today about a neighbor feud that resulted in three people being arrested and two dogs being shot. (I hate that part about the dogs being shot; one died and the other was injured.)
Guess where all this hubbub took place? In the tony Birmingham suburb of Homewood.
Now Homewood isn't tony as in Mountain Brook or Vestavia Hills tony. That's where truly wealthy people tend to congregate. But property values in Homewood are absurd, mainly because of its "good" (read predominantly white) school system. You can find a "cottage" in Homewood, with lots of "curb appeal," for, oh, about $350,000.
Pretty much the same house, probably bigger and in better shape, can be found in Birmingham's western section for about $85,000. Those neighborhoods have "bad" (read predominantly black) schools.
Anyway, back to the feudin' in Homewood. Seems that four recent college graduates moved in next door to a family on South Brook Circle. A father and son claimed the college grads had damaged the fence between the two homes. When officers arrived on the scene, two dogs (who looked like pit bulls) got loose from the college dudes (I'm assuming they are dudes), and police wound up shooting the animals.
This all happened on Saturday, but the feud was rekindled on Sunday--and that led to arrests. The father and son were arrested on misdemeanor menacing charges for being armed while confronting one of the dudes. The dude, in turn, was arrested on harassment charges because he threatened to get a gun and shoot the father and son.
Here's something interesting about the coverage in The Birmingham News. This clearly is public information, but no names were given in the story. If a similar event took place in a predominantly black neighborhood, I'm guessing names would have been used.
I've noticed this tendency to protect suburbanites before. Some years ago, the wife of a prominent restaurateur died in a mysterious fire at her Mountain Brook home. As I recall, the house was not destroyed or even damaged to a great degree. But somehow the woman managed to die in the fire--and very little was written about it.
About two years ago, a woman from Gardendale was killed in an automobile crash while driving south on Highway 280 to her job at Infinity Insurance. A northbound vehicle, almost certainly a resident from the southern suburbs, somehow managed to cross the median and hit the woman head on. I remember driving past the scene that morning and thinking it was the worst looking wreck I had ever seen on 280. The News never reported the name of the driver of the vehicle that struck the woman's car. And the paper never reported what caused the accident. My guess? Someone was talking on a cellphone.
As for events in Homewood, I'm guessing real-estate agents are already figuring out ways to take advantage of the feud. Imagine this ad for a small house on South Brook Circle:
"Charming fixer upper. 2 BR, 1 BA, carport, wooded lot. Lively, spirited neighbors. Never a dull moment in this desirable neighborhood!"
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Unmasking Right-Wing Sickos?
The fine folks at Democratic Underground have an intriguing thread going, and I wanted to share it with Legal Schnauzer readers.
The DU folks are combing through the numerous threatening anonymous comments I've received in the weeks and months leading up to my termination at UAB. They are searching for clues that might shine light on who sent these comments--and who contributed to getting me fired.
My wife and I hardly have words to say how much we appreciate this kind of effort. The task is difficult because, as I understand it, Google puts a block on comments to its blogs (I guess as a privacy measure). The company says it will reveal the source of such comments only if it receives a subpoena, forcing it to do so.
Seeing as how I'm almost certainly going to have to file an employment-related lawsuit against UAB (actually the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama), a subpoena may indeed be in Google's future.
But I certainly welcome efforts like the one going on at Democratic Underground. In order to help the cause, I should point out that I moderate my comments, and the DU folks have only been able to see the nasty stuff I've allowed to be published.
To truly grasp the depravity of the right-wing fear mongers, you need to see the anonymous comments I have not let through. Following is a sampler of such comments divided up by subject:
ON OUR DOG MURPHY
* From: AnonymousDate: Jun 30, 2008 8:58 PM
are you sure your dog died a natural death? maybe, maybe not...you will never know will you?
* From: AnonymousDate: Jun 12, 2008 10:18 PM
you are a fool like your dead dog
* From: AnonymousDate: May 20, 2008 9:25 PM
You are such a little man...such the small person. You offer nothing to the world other than your pitiful rantings. How is your dog?
* From: AnonymousDate: May 19, 2008 7:27 PM
Your Schnauzer has no bite because he is dead. Why did you roll over and kill your dog? Possible animal cruelty charges to come.
ON MY JOB/GENERAL THREATS
* Date: Jun 3, 2008 5:01 PMSubject:
Did your employer UAB give you the boot up the schnauzer?
* From: AnonymousDate: May 15, 2008 9:33 PM
You are in deep do-do Schnauzer
* From: AnonymousDate: May 13, 2008 9:03 PM
you deserve everything coming your way plus some
* From: AnonymousDate: May 8, 2008 12:55 PM
and now you have crossed the line. this will be fun watching your miserable self destruct
* From: AnonymousDate: Apr 7, 2008 9:16 PM
You better sweep yours Schnauzer we know every move you make.
* From: AnonymousDate: Mar 20, 2008 7:12 PM
I cannot even begin to say what an idiot you are. Not only have you butchered now the facts of the case, but the law involved as well. I'll just leave it to the fact that you, along with your bloated buddy Mr. Horton, and your co-conspirators (you probably don't even realize who they are) working in Montgomery and Birmingham law firms, are out of your fucking minds. What an idiot.
ON THE UNLAWFUL AUCTION OF OUR HOUSE:
* From: AnonymousDate: May 8, 2008 5:13 PM
How much is your house worth schnauzer?I'm thinking of buying it for pennies on the dollar.Haven't heard you talk about AMEX lately.the folks still treating you nice?HA Ha
The DU folks are combing through the numerous threatening anonymous comments I've received in the weeks and months leading up to my termination at UAB. They are searching for clues that might shine light on who sent these comments--and who contributed to getting me fired.
My wife and I hardly have words to say how much we appreciate this kind of effort. The task is difficult because, as I understand it, Google puts a block on comments to its blogs (I guess as a privacy measure). The company says it will reveal the source of such comments only if it receives a subpoena, forcing it to do so.
Seeing as how I'm almost certainly going to have to file an employment-related lawsuit against UAB (actually the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama), a subpoena may indeed be in Google's future.
But I certainly welcome efforts like the one going on at Democratic Underground. In order to help the cause, I should point out that I moderate my comments, and the DU folks have only been able to see the nasty stuff I've allowed to be published.
To truly grasp the depravity of the right-wing fear mongers, you need to see the anonymous comments I have not let through. Following is a sampler of such comments divided up by subject:
ON OUR DOG MURPHY
* From: Anonymous
are you sure your dog died a natural death? maybe, maybe not...you will never know will you?
* From: Anonymous
you are a fool like your dead dog
* From: Anonymous
You are such a little man...such the small person. You offer nothing to the world other than your pitiful rantings. How is your dog?
* From: Anonymous
Your Schnauzer has no bite because he is dead. Why did you roll over and kill your dog? Possible animal cruelty charges to come.
ON MY JOB/GENERAL THREATS
* Date: Jun 3, 2008 5:01 PMSubject:
Did your employer UAB give you the boot up the schnauzer?
* Date: Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Keep it up you piece of shit and see how YOUR life turns out in the end.
* From: Anonymous
* From: Anonymous
You are in deep do-do Schnauzer
* From: Anonymous
you deserve everything coming your way plus some
* From: Anonymous
and now you have crossed the line. this will be fun watching your miserable self destruct
* From: Anonymous
You better sweep yours Schnauzer we know every move you make.
* From: Anonymous
I cannot even begin to say what an idiot you are. Not only have you butchered now the facts of the case, but the law involved as well. I'll just leave it to the fact that you, along with your bloated buddy Mr. Horton, and your co-conspirators (you probably don't even realize who they are) working in Montgomery and Birmingham law firms, are out of your fucking minds. What an idiot.
ON THE UNLAWFUL AUCTION OF OUR HOUSE:
* From: Anonymous
How much is your house worth schnauzer?I'm thinking of buying it for pennies on the dollar.Haven't heard you talk about AMEX lately.the folks still treating you nice?HA Ha
The Original Legal Schnauzer
One of the side benefits of Raw Story's piece about my termination at UAB is that it has given me an opportunity to introduce you to the original Legal Schnauzer.
That of course would be Murphy, our miniature schnauzer (1993-2004) who helped my wife and me survive the worst of our legal nightmare and serves as the inspiration for this blog.
I was telling someone the other day that when the idea of a blog first occurred to me, I thought of such clever titles as "corruptjudges.com" and "judgessuck.com." While those titles captured the kind of rage my wife and I have felt from being victimized by our "justice system," they did not capture what I was after with this blog.
For one thing, I wanted the blog to be about more than just our personal tale of legal woe, so it needed a title with some breadth to it. And I wanted it to help educate citizens about the potential dangers that lurk in America's courtrooms. In other words, I wanted it to have a consumer, "news-you-can-use" feel to it. I wanted it to be helpful, and I think that prompted the name "Legal Schnauzer" to pop into my brain.
No living being has been more helpful to my wife and me--at a time when we desperately needed help--than Murphy was. Her playful spirit and her seemingly innate sense of right and wrong (at least that's how we saw it) helped keep us going at times when we both wanted to curl up in a corner and not move again.
If I had picked one of those impersonal blog titles, I think I would have given up the blogging gig a long time ago. Blogging, I've learned, is very time consuming, and it's hard work--particularly when you are writing about a complicated, important subject. I can't remember the last time I read a book, and my exercise regimen has pretty much gone down the drain.
Murphy had many attributes that we found endearing. But one of our favorites was her sense of duty. We called her our "little security guard." She saw it as her job to protect our house and let out a clarion call if any strangers came into her line of sight. That was her duty, and by God, she took it seriously.
At times when I've thought about packing it in on this whole blog thing--particularly when it became evident that we could pay a huge price because of the truths contained herein--I remembered Murphy and her deeply ingrained sense of duty. That inspired me to keep going. To borrow from a religious theme, it was kind of a WWMWMTD kind of thing--What Would Murphy Want Me To Do.
My wife and I agree that she would want us to push forward--even though I've lost my job, we might lose our house, and our lives are definitely on the edge of being ruined. I've never considered myself to be a particularly brave person. I've never been in the military and had to lay my life on the line for this country. But I do have some ability to research information and string sentences together in a somewhat coherent way. So I guess you might say that writing Legal Schnauzer a kind of patriotic duty--its my way of joining the chorus of folks who are trying to warn our fellow Americans about the grave dangers currently threatening our democracy.
It's been said that "a little child shall lead them." Here at Legal Schnauzer, it's been a little dog who has led us. We hope that journey will eventually lead to a restoration of justice in our country. If that effort fails, at least it won't be because we didn't try.
Our cover schnauzer is a strapping, handsome fellow named Gumpie-Poo. He is from Queensland, Australia, and the fine folks at Valleyview Dog Breeders gave us permission to use his picture.
We had never run a picture of Murphy because we didn't have any in a digital format. All of our photos are prints, and since I'm a little slow on the technological uptake, I wasn't sure how to solve that problem.
When the fine folks at Raw Story said they would like to run a photo of Murphy and me ("So people can see the original Legal Schnauzer," Lindsay Beyerstein said), I thought it was a great idea. But I was too dense to figure out how to get around the techno stumbling block.
Fortunately, my wife was on the ball. "Hey," she said, "I think places like OfficeMax can scan photo prints for us."
By golly, she was right. And that's what allowed us to provide the photo you see above.
Regular readers have a pretty good idea of how much Murphy meant to my wife and me. In fact, I've written a number of posts about her. Dog and animal lovers, or just folks who are curious about what inspired this blog, can check out these posts:
I thought it might be a neat idea to occasionally run a photo of Murphy (now that I know how to do it), perhaps as a reminder of the little dog who did so much to help us survive years of untold legal mayhem.
If, through these words and pictures, someone else might come to understand how much a special pet can mean--particularly in troubled times--that would be great, too.
For now, here is a photo of Murphy as a puppy, and I think this is the first shot we took of her, on her first day at home.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Siegelman Says McCain Should Call Out Rove
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman today called on Republican presidential nominee John McCain to call for former White House strategist to testify before Congress.
Sam Stein, of Huffington Post, reports on Siegelman's comments at Netroots Nation in Austin, Texas.
"Sen. McCain should distance himself from Karl Rove," said Siegelman. "And I think it is important and a smart political move [for him] to call on Rove to go and obey the law and to show up before the Judiciary Committee, to put his hand on the Bible, and to try to tell the truth - or at least plead the fifth."
Siegelman, whose controversial trial for corruption contained many Rove fingerprints, would not go so far as to claim that by employing Rove as a consultant, McCain was sullying his own good-government credentials. "That's a question that is left to the people and the electorate and they will have an opportunity to express themselves in November," he said.
Siegelman didn't just direct his comments toward McCain:
"I would like to see Senator Obama speak out on this issue and call on Congress to hold Rove in contempt because no man is above the law," he said. "And I think its set a terrible example going forward if we do not hold Rove accountable."
Sam Stein, of Huffington Post, reports on Siegelman's comments at Netroots Nation in Austin, Texas.
"Sen. McCain should distance himself from Karl Rove," said Siegelman. "And I think it is important and a smart political move [for him] to call on Rove to go and obey the law and to show up before the Judiciary Committee, to put his hand on the Bible, and to try to tell the truth - or at least plead the fifth."
Siegelman, whose controversial trial for corruption contained many Rove fingerprints, would not go so far as to claim that by employing Rove as a consultant, McCain was sullying his own good-government credentials. "That's a question that is left to the people and the electorate and they will have an opportunity to express themselves in November," he said.
Siegelman didn't just direct his comments toward McCain:
"I would like to see Senator Obama speak out on this issue and call on Congress to hold Rove in contempt because no man is above the law," he said. "And I think its set a terrible example going forward if we do not hold Rove accountable."
Election Intrigue in the Deep South
Those of us in Alabama are intimately aware of our 2002 gubernatorial election, when votes mysteriously shifted in the middle of the night, giving Bob Riley a razor thin "victory" over incumbent Democrat Don Siegelman.
Thanks to Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane at Raw Story, we now know about electoral hanky-panky right next door, in Georgia.
Raw Story reports that a leading cyber-security expert, and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections:
Stephen Spoonamore is the founder and until recently the CEO of Cybrinth LLC, an information technology policy and security firm that serves Fortune 100 companies. At a little noticed press conference in Columbus, Ohio Thursday, he discussed his investigation of a computer patch that was applied to Diebold Election Systems voting machines in Georgia right before that state's November 2002 election.
Spoonamore is one of the most prominent cyber-security experts in the country. He has appeared on CNN's Lou Dobbs and ABC's World News Tonight, and has security clearances from his work with the intelligence community and other government agencies, as well as the Department of Defense, and is one of the world’s leading authorities on hacking and cyber-espionage.
How did the story unfold?
Spoonamore received the Diebold patch from a whistleblower close to the office of Cathy Cox, Georgia’s then-Secretary of State. In discussions with RAW STORY, the whistleblower -- who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation -- said that he became suspicious of Diebold's actions in Georgia for two reasons. The first red flag went up when the computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, who flew in from Texas and applied it in just two counties, DeKalb and Fulton, both Democratic strongholds. The source states that Cox was not privy to these changes until after the election and that she became particularly concerned over the patch being installed in just those two counties.
The whistleblower said another flag went up when it became apparent that the patch installed by Urosevich had failed to fix a problem with the computer clock, which employees from Diebold and the Georgia Secretary of State’s office had been told the patch was designed specifically to address.
What impact could this have had:
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who was five percentage points ahead of Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss in polls taken a week before the vote, lost 53% to 46%. Incumbent Democratic Governor Roy Barnes, who led challenger Sonny Perdue in the polls by eleven points, lost 51% to 46%. However, because the Diebold machines used throughout the state provided no paper trail, it was impossible to ask for a recount in either case.
Concerned by the electoral outcome, the whistleblower approached Spoonamore because of his qualifications and asked him to examine the Diebold patch.
Thanks to Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane at Raw Story, we now know about electoral hanky-panky right next door, in Georgia.
Raw Story reports that a leading cyber-security expert, and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections:
Stephen Spoonamore is the founder and until recently the CEO of Cybrinth LLC, an information technology policy and security firm that serves Fortune 100 companies. At a little noticed press conference in Columbus, Ohio Thursday, he discussed his investigation of a computer patch that was applied to Diebold Election Systems voting machines in Georgia right before that state's November 2002 election.
Spoonamore is one of the most prominent cyber-security experts in the country. He has appeared on CNN's Lou Dobbs and ABC's World News Tonight, and has security clearances from his work with the intelligence community and other government agencies, as well as the Department of Defense, and is one of the world’s leading authorities on hacking and cyber-espionage.
How did the story unfold?
Spoonamore received the Diebold patch from a whistleblower close to the office of Cathy Cox, Georgia’s then-Secretary of State. In discussions with RAW STORY, the whistleblower -- who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation -- said that he became suspicious of Diebold's actions in Georgia for two reasons. The first red flag went up when the computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, who flew in from Texas and applied it in just two counties, DeKalb and Fulton, both Democratic strongholds. The source states that Cox was not privy to these changes until after the election and that she became particularly concerned over the patch being installed in just those two counties.
The whistleblower said another flag went up when it became apparent that the patch installed by Urosevich had failed to fix a problem with the computer clock, which employees from Diebold and the Georgia Secretary of State’s office had been told the patch was designed specifically to address.
What impact could this have had:
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who was five percentage points ahead of Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss in polls taken a week before the vote, lost 53% to 46%. Incumbent Democratic Governor Roy Barnes, who led challenger Sonny Perdue in the polls by eleven points, lost 51% to 46%. However, because the Diebold machines used throughout the state provided no paper trail, it was impossible to ask for a recount in either case.
Concerned by the electoral outcome, the whistleblower approached Spoonamore because of his qualifications and asked him to examine the Diebold patch.
Is Alice Martin Getting In Deeper and Deeper?
The negative attention just keeps on coming for Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Couldn't happen to a more deserving gal.
The latest comes from reporter Kate Klonick at TPM Muckraker, outlining the scrutiny Martin is receiving for her mishandling of the Alex Latifi/Axion case in Huntsville.
Klonick reports:
The new OPR investigation stems from a case involving Axion Corp., which was acquitted in October 2007 of violating the Arms Export Control Act. In an interview with TPMmuckraker this morning, Henry Frohsin, an attorney for Axion Corp., confirmed that they had sent a letter of complaint against Martin to the OPR on May 9. News of the investigation was first reported by Scott Horton, at the American Lawyer, citing anonymous sources.
"We consider this a serious case of prosecutorial misconduct that impacted the rights of the defendant," Frohsin, of the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz, told us, "and we intend to rigorously pursue this matter with authorities at the Department of Justice."
Frohsin also stated that a DOJ attorney had been assigned to look into their complaint.
What's the latest on Latifi's fight for justice? Klonick provides some answers:
Latifi, an engineer trained at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, will be able to collect about $500,000 in expenses, said his Birmingham attorney, Henry Frohsin. Latifi contends that he was selected for prosecution under arms-export laws because of his ethnic background.
And apparently the DOJ immediately started covering its tracks:
Johnson's ruling also said the government has withdrawn its request for a certification from the court endorsing the asset seizure as having had a reasonable cause. That eliminates any chances for Axion's lawyers to demand a hearing to examine the Justice Department's memos, legal papers and investigative methods, said Frohsin, a lawyer with the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.
The latest comes from reporter Kate Klonick at TPM Muckraker, outlining the scrutiny Martin is receiving for her mishandling of the Alex Latifi/Axion case in Huntsville.
Klonick reports:
The new OPR investigation stems from a case involving Axion Corp., which was acquitted in October 2007 of violating the Arms Export Control Act. In an interview with TPMmuckraker this morning, Henry Frohsin, an attorney for Axion Corp., confirmed that they had sent a letter of complaint against Martin to the OPR on May 9. News of the investigation was first reported by Scott Horton, at the American Lawyer, citing anonymous sources.
"We consider this a serious case of prosecutorial misconduct that impacted the rights of the defendant," Frohsin, of the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz, told us, "and we intend to rigorously pursue this matter with authorities at the Department of Justice."
Frohsin also stated that a DOJ attorney had been assigned to look into their complaint.
What's the latest on Latifi's fight for justice? Klonick provides some answers:
Latifi, an engineer trained at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, will be able to collect about $500,000 in expenses, said his Birmingham attorney, Henry Frohsin. Latifi contends that he was selected for prosecution under arms-export laws because of his ethnic background.
And apparently the DOJ immediately started covering its tracks:
Johnson's ruling also said the government has withdrawn its request for a certification from the court endorsing the asset seizure as having had a reasonable cause. That eliminates any chances for Axion's lawyers to demand a hearing to examine the Justice Department's memos, legal papers and investigative methods, said Frohsin, a lawyer with the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.
Alabama Press Still Does the Siegelman Tango
In less than an hour, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman will be featured at the Netroots Nation event in Austin, Texas.
"A Conversation With Former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama" will begin at 10:30 a.m. and run until 11:45 a.m. Sam Seder, radio show host on Air America, will moderate the conversation, and it will be streamed live at Air America. You can catch the presentation here.
What is Netroots Nation? You can check it out here. And you can check out the full agenda here. Definitely makes me wish I could be there, and I'm heartened to know that a number of Alabama progressives are there.
Reading about this event makes me wonder about the strange world we live in, particularly here in Karl Rove's Alabama.
In the wake of Raw Story's investigative piece about my termination at UAB, I was invited to appear on the Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins radio shows. Where are they based? In Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California, respectively. I was impressed that both hosts clearly were well grounded in Alabama events related to the Bush Justice Department, particularly the Siegelman prosecution.
Have I been invited to be on any radio shows in Alabama--Birmingham, Mobile, Huntsville, Prattville, Boaz, Burnt Corn? Nope.
But let's consider the issue of Don Siegelman. He is one of the prime attractions at an event in Austin, Texas, an event that will be streamed live across the country on Air America. Apparently quite a few people around the country "get" his case and realize it raises disturbing questions about the Bush Justice Department.
Does the press in Alabama "get" the Siegelman case? Has it even made any attempt to "get" the Siegelman case?
Consider a recent editorial from our friends at The Birmingham News. The Newsies seem to revel in their ignorance about the Siegelman case. The editorial is filled with smug, condescending, uninformed claptrap. It's truly embarrassing that editorial writers from our state's largest paper make no effort to educate themselves before putting pen to paper.
Consider this from the Newsies:
Taxpayers should welcome the U.S. Department of Justice's internal investigation about alleged political motivations behind the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Not because there's such solid evidence Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. There isn't. But there's been enough political taint to some of the Justice Department's other conduct - and enough spin by Team Siegelman - to all but demand a response from the agency.
There isn't solid evidence that Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons? Where have these people been?
What we've seen so far certainly hasn't sold us on the notion Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. His administration dabbled so much in shady business that nobody should have been surprised when federal investigators started sniffing around, least of all an old pro like Siegelman. Plus, those making the allegations about political motives haven't exactly inspired confidence in the credibility department.
Shady business? What exactly is the News referring to, and who establishes the definition of "shady business?" Was Siegelman's "shady business" any different from the "shady business" of other Alabama governors--including Bob Riley? Or was the amount of scrutiny Siegelman received different? And since when is anyone sent to federal prison for alleged "shady business." Our criminal courts are about crimes, not shady business. Has any Alabama newspaper unearthed any facts, and presented any law, showing Siegelman committed a crime? Answer: No.
Indeed, the best arguments for Siegelman's conspiracy theory have nothing at all to do with his case. The Justice Department's dismissal of prosecutors who crossed the Republican Party, as well as its political screening of young hires in its intern and honors programs, lend more credence to Siegelman's claims of partisanship than any evidence he has turned up related to his bribery conviction.
Here is where the News really shows its ignorance. By far the best arguments for Siegelman's conspiracy theory can be found right in his case. In fact, all one has to do is examine the words of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who "oversaw" the case. In his memorandum opinion attempting to justify Siegelman's immediate imprisonment, Fuller clearly showed that he either was ignorant of federal bribery and mail-fraud law or he intentionally misstated the nature of the laws in his jury instructions. That, to a large degree, is why the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals released Siegelman pending appeal: The judge himself could not justify the outcome in the case.
The truth of what happened to Don Siegelman is right there in his case. But to get at the truth requires reading key portions of the transcript and researching the actual law. That's too much effort apparently for the folks at the News.
"A Conversation With Former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama" will begin at 10:30 a.m. and run until 11:45 a.m. Sam Seder, radio show host on Air America, will moderate the conversation, and it will be streamed live at Air America. You can catch the presentation here.
What is Netroots Nation? You can check it out here. And you can check out the full agenda here. Definitely makes me wish I could be there, and I'm heartened to know that a number of Alabama progressives are there.
Reading about this event makes me wonder about the strange world we live in, particularly here in Karl Rove's Alabama.
In the wake of Raw Story's investigative piece about my termination at UAB, I was invited to appear on the Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins radio shows. Where are they based? In Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California, respectively. I was impressed that both hosts clearly were well grounded in Alabama events related to the Bush Justice Department, particularly the Siegelman prosecution.
Have I been invited to be on any radio shows in Alabama--Birmingham, Mobile, Huntsville, Prattville, Boaz, Burnt Corn? Nope.
But let's consider the issue of Don Siegelman. He is one of the prime attractions at an event in Austin, Texas, an event that will be streamed live across the country on Air America. Apparently quite a few people around the country "get" his case and realize it raises disturbing questions about the Bush Justice Department.
Does the press in Alabama "get" the Siegelman case? Has it even made any attempt to "get" the Siegelman case?
Consider a recent editorial from our friends at The Birmingham News. The Newsies seem to revel in their ignorance about the Siegelman case. The editorial is filled with smug, condescending, uninformed claptrap. It's truly embarrassing that editorial writers from our state's largest paper make no effort to educate themselves before putting pen to paper.
Consider this from the Newsies:
Taxpayers should welcome the U.S. Department of Justice's internal investigation about alleged political motivations behind the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Not because there's such solid evidence Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. There isn't. But there's been enough political taint to some of the Justice Department's other conduct - and enough spin by Team Siegelman - to all but demand a response from the agency.
There isn't solid evidence that Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons? Where have these people been?
What we've seen so far certainly hasn't sold us on the notion Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. His administration dabbled so much in shady business that nobody should have been surprised when federal investigators started sniffing around, least of all an old pro like Siegelman. Plus, those making the allegations about political motives haven't exactly inspired confidence in the credibility department.
Shady business? What exactly is the News referring to, and who establishes the definition of "shady business?" Was Siegelman's "shady business" any different from the "shady business" of other Alabama governors--including Bob Riley? Or was the amount of scrutiny Siegelman received different? And since when is anyone sent to federal prison for alleged "shady business." Our criminal courts are about crimes, not shady business. Has any Alabama newspaper unearthed any facts, and presented any law, showing Siegelman committed a crime? Answer: No.
Indeed, the best arguments for Siegelman's conspiracy theory have nothing at all to do with his case. The Justice Department's dismissal of prosecutors who crossed the Republican Party, as well as its political screening of young hires in its intern and honors programs, lend more credence to Siegelman's claims of partisanship than any evidence he has turned up related to his bribery conviction.
Here is where the News really shows its ignorance. By far the best arguments for Siegelman's conspiracy theory can be found right in his case. In fact, all one has to do is examine the words of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who "oversaw" the case. In his memorandum opinion attempting to justify Siegelman's immediate imprisonment, Fuller clearly showed that he either was ignorant of federal bribery and mail-fraud law or he intentionally misstated the nature of the laws in his jury instructions. That, to a large degree, is why the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals released Siegelman pending appeal: The judge himself could not justify the outcome in the case.
The truth of what happened to Don Siegelman is right there in his case. But to get at the truth requires reading key portions of the transcript and researching the actual law. That's too much effort apparently for the folks at the News.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Is UAB Playing Games With My Termination, Part III
Given the contents of the e-mail I sent UAB HR director Cheryl Locke on July 3 (see the end of previous post), you might think she would be expecting me to voice concerns about her proposal for my return to UAB.
But Locke was shocked, and I think more than a little peeved, that I found serious flaws with her plans for my future at UAB. The flaws in Locke's proposal would be apparent to most anyone with, say, three brain cells. But everywhere I've turned for seven-plus years, people connected to the dark side of my legal episode have talked to me as if I have nothing but empty space between my ears. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Locke would join the crowd.
(A note: Under normal circumstances, I think Locke and I could be buds. She's a graduate of Brown University and came to UAB from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, so obviously she's not a ding dong. She didn't go into specifics, but I get the feeling the two of us are on the same political wavelength. And she has a quirky way about her that I think I would find charming if her superiors at UAB weren't so busy trying to ruin my career.)
So what did I tell Locke? Here is a summary of my responses to her key points:
* Two written warnings--I said returning to UAB with two written warnings in my file was unacceptable, for a number of reasons. The most important is this: I sat through my entire grievance hearing; I heard every word that was said. I saw my supervisor, Pam Powell, asked repeatedly to provide documentation to support her assertions that my performance had declined, that she had warned me about Internet usage, that I had violated any departmental or university policy, etc. She provided no documentation, zip. That's because none of those assertions are based in fact. I told Locke that there was no evidence to support one written warning against me, much less two. In fact, there was no evidence to support discipline of any kind, and I refused to accept unwarranted disciplinary warnings in my personnel file.
(A note: I see no indication in UAB policy that a grievance committee has the authority to substitute one form of punishment for another. The hearing was about my termination [and the grievance I had filed against Pam Powell, which should have been heard earlier and should have precluded my termination], and university policy seems to indicate the committee should have issued only an up or down ruling on that. Clearly, their ruling was to overturn my termination. But Locke said they wanted to substitute the two written warnings. I can only take Locke's word on that. I was not given a copy of the committee's written report.)
Here, though, is a critical issue about the two written warnings: UAB policy is clear that an employee will be automatically fired if he receives three written warnings in an 18-month period of time. UAB's insistence that I have two written warnings if I return, in my view, can only be seen as a set-up. Clearly, the university wants me to sign away my legal rights regarding the current mess they've made and return to work, only to be fired all over again--probably before the November election.
I told Locke that I considered this proposal a set-up, and I told her I considered her proposal to be made in bad faith. She didn't make much of an effort to deny it.
Locke did say that she and the HR staff would make every effort to ensure that I was successful in my new (unspecified) position. She seemed to be saying, "Trust us." For some reason my reservoir of trust for higher-ups around UAB is running a bit low at the moment.
When I pointed out that I would be automatically gone with one more written warning--and that could come for most anything, wearing the wrong color of socks perhaps--Locke said, "Well that would be up to your supervisor."
Somehow, that statement didn't fill me with confidence.
* Placement in a job other than my old one--I told Locke that one of the fundamental ideas in our justice system is that a wronged party be, at a bare minimum, restored (as much as is possible) to the position he was in prior to the wrong. The grievance hearing clearly showed that I was the wronged party. By Locke's own admission, the committee found that I should not have been terminated. And the evidence showed that I should not have been disciplined at all.
While I noted that the grievance process was not the same as a court of law, I refused to accept an outcome where I was wrongfully deprived of a job that I had earned and performed well for 12 years. Locke noted that she thought I would be better off in a different atmosphere. I told her that if the atmosphere was poisoned in my old department, I wasn't the one who poisoned it--and the results of the grievance hearing showed that. I said I was willing to make the effort to return the atmosphere to where it used to be, and if Pam Powell was willing to make a similar effort, there shouldn't be a problem.
Then, just to show Locke that I'm not dense as a doorknob (an old Missouri expression there), I laid this on her: I said it is quite clear to me why UAB does not want me back in my old department. I'm sure that at least one person, and probably multiple people, know that my termination was an elaborate hoax. I suspect a number of people in my old work environment know I was fired, not because of any work deficiencies or policy violations, but because of external pressure stemming from my blog. And I suspect one or two people probably know exactly where that pressure came from, and the pathway that was used to get me fired. Having me around that department on a regular basis would mean that someone might eventually spill the beans to me about what really happened. Locke got this look on her face like, "Damn this guy's not as dumb as I thought."
"Cheryl," I said, "if you are worried about someone spilling the beans to me, you should take that off your mind. I already know what caused me to be fired, and I'm about 90 percent sure who did it and how it was done. So there should be no problem with me returning to my old department. And for good measure, I strongly suspect criminal activity was involved."
I think it's safe to say that statement didn't make her day.
So how did our little summit meeting end? I thought maybe there would be some back and forth, some give and take, maybe a moment or two of negotiation. But Locke made it clear that her proposal would be shoved down my throat, and I would enjoy it, or she was going to uphold my termination--the committee's recommendation, be damned.
(I was starting to realize what Scott Adams was thinking when he created the character "Catbert, evil HR director" for Dilbert.)
The bottom line? Cheryl Locke said she was going to ignore the recommendation of her own committee and uphold my termination. I would be receiving written notice in the mail shortly.
And I am left with these questions:
* Why would UAB insist that I have two unsupported written warnings in my file? What would UAB stand to gain from that? Answer: UAB would have nothing to gain from it. But someone external to UAB would, and they want to see me quietly lured me back to UAB under conditions that would allow me to be fired all over again--in a nice, clean way this time. (Warning: Schnauzers aren't known for going quietly.)
* Why would UAB insist that I return to something other than my old job? Again, what does UAB stand to gain from that? I've already answered that one: They don't want someone spilling the beans about who really is behind my termination. If I remember correctly, UAB has an animal-care facility about 30 or 40 miles from the main campus, in Childersburg or Sylacauga or some such location. They probably would send me to that facility and make me the chief s**t shoveler.
* Why would Cheryl Locke tell me verbally that I would not be allowed to blog anymore if I return to UAB? And make no mistake about it, that's what she said. I have it in my written notes that she was concerned about how a blog would affect my "representation" of UAB. She simply backed down when I asked her to make that statement in writing. If anyone can show how my current blog represents UAB in any way, please let me know. To repeat a question, what would UAB stand to gain from this proposal, given that my blog clearly has nothing to do with the university? Answer: UAB wouldn't gain anything, but someone external to the university would, and that someone still wants to see me out of the blogging business.
A final thought: Being unemployed, when you feel like you should be working, is no fun. Being unemployed when you were cheated out of your job is even less fun. But this firing, in a macabre kind of way, validates what we are doing here at Legal Schnauzer.
If I was some loon, who had his facts messed up and his law mangled, no one would care about it--and I would still have my job. But we are presenting the truth here, and these truths make some folks uncomfortable--so much so that they are willing to take extreme measures to see to it that I lost my job.
I never felt like this blog needed validation from anyone; I knew all along I was on target. But I take some satisfaction that the thugs behind my termination have proven just how on target I really am.
One other side benefit to being unemployed: It has given me more time to truly "research my blog"--on my own time, as I've done it all along. But thanks to UAB, I now have more time to call my own. And we schnauzers like to use our free time wisely.
I've used my free time to uncover some most interesting facts about UAB, some of the people who run it, some people who caused it to make serious missteps, and a justice system that has turned a blind eye to those missteps. I've also uncovered some interesting facts about the GOP power junkies who are riding high these days in Alabama and Mississippi.
Is it possible they won't be riding high for much longer? And does all of this somehow converge in some way that helps explain my termination from UAB?
I think it does. And we will be laying it out in the days ahead.
But Locke was shocked, and I think more than a little peeved, that I found serious flaws with her plans for my future at UAB. The flaws in Locke's proposal would be apparent to most anyone with, say, three brain cells. But everywhere I've turned for seven-plus years, people connected to the dark side of my legal episode have talked to me as if I have nothing but empty space between my ears. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Locke would join the crowd.
(A note: Under normal circumstances, I think Locke and I could be buds. She's a graduate of Brown University and came to UAB from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, so obviously she's not a ding dong. She didn't go into specifics, but I get the feeling the two of us are on the same political wavelength. And she has a quirky way about her that I think I would find charming if her superiors at UAB weren't so busy trying to ruin my career.)
So what did I tell Locke? Here is a summary of my responses to her key points:
* Two written warnings--I said returning to UAB with two written warnings in my file was unacceptable, for a number of reasons. The most important is this: I sat through my entire grievance hearing; I heard every word that was said. I saw my supervisor, Pam Powell, asked repeatedly to provide documentation to support her assertions that my performance had declined, that she had warned me about Internet usage, that I had violated any departmental or university policy, etc. She provided no documentation, zip. That's because none of those assertions are based in fact. I told Locke that there was no evidence to support one written warning against me, much less two. In fact, there was no evidence to support discipline of any kind, and I refused to accept unwarranted disciplinary warnings in my personnel file.
(A note: I see no indication in UAB policy that a grievance committee has the authority to substitute one form of punishment for another. The hearing was about my termination [and the grievance I had filed against Pam Powell, which should have been heard earlier and should have precluded my termination], and university policy seems to indicate the committee should have issued only an up or down ruling on that. Clearly, their ruling was to overturn my termination. But Locke said they wanted to substitute the two written warnings. I can only take Locke's word on that. I was not given a copy of the committee's written report.)
Here, though, is a critical issue about the two written warnings: UAB policy is clear that an employee will be automatically fired if he receives three written warnings in an 18-month period of time. UAB's insistence that I have two written warnings if I return, in my view, can only be seen as a set-up. Clearly, the university wants me to sign away my legal rights regarding the current mess they've made and return to work, only to be fired all over again--probably before the November election.
I told Locke that I considered this proposal a set-up, and I told her I considered her proposal to be made in bad faith. She didn't make much of an effort to deny it.
Locke did say that she and the HR staff would make every effort to ensure that I was successful in my new (unspecified) position. She seemed to be saying, "Trust us." For some reason my reservoir of trust for higher-ups around UAB is running a bit low at the moment.
When I pointed out that I would be automatically gone with one more written warning--and that could come for most anything, wearing the wrong color of socks perhaps--Locke said, "Well that would be up to your supervisor."
Somehow, that statement didn't fill me with confidence.
* Placement in a job other than my old one--I told Locke that one of the fundamental ideas in our justice system is that a wronged party be, at a bare minimum, restored (as much as is possible) to the position he was in prior to the wrong. The grievance hearing clearly showed that I was the wronged party. By Locke's own admission, the committee found that I should not have been terminated. And the evidence showed that I should not have been disciplined at all.
While I noted that the grievance process was not the same as a court of law, I refused to accept an outcome where I was wrongfully deprived of a job that I had earned and performed well for 12 years. Locke noted that she thought I would be better off in a different atmosphere. I told her that if the atmosphere was poisoned in my old department, I wasn't the one who poisoned it--and the results of the grievance hearing showed that. I said I was willing to make the effort to return the atmosphere to where it used to be, and if Pam Powell was willing to make a similar effort, there shouldn't be a problem.
Then, just to show Locke that I'm not dense as a doorknob (an old Missouri expression there), I laid this on her: I said it is quite clear to me why UAB does not want me back in my old department. I'm sure that at least one person, and probably multiple people, know that my termination was an elaborate hoax. I suspect a number of people in my old work environment know I was fired, not because of any work deficiencies or policy violations, but because of external pressure stemming from my blog. And I suspect one or two people probably know exactly where that pressure came from, and the pathway that was used to get me fired. Having me around that department on a regular basis would mean that someone might eventually spill the beans to me about what really happened. Locke got this look on her face like, "Damn this guy's not as dumb as I thought."
"Cheryl," I said, "if you are worried about someone spilling the beans to me, you should take that off your mind. I already know what caused me to be fired, and I'm about 90 percent sure who did it and how it was done. So there should be no problem with me returning to my old department. And for good measure, I strongly suspect criminal activity was involved."
I think it's safe to say that statement didn't make her day.
So how did our little summit meeting end? I thought maybe there would be some back and forth, some give and take, maybe a moment or two of negotiation. But Locke made it clear that her proposal would be shoved down my throat, and I would enjoy it, or she was going to uphold my termination--the committee's recommendation, be damned.
(I was starting to realize what Scott Adams was thinking when he created the character "Catbert, evil HR director" for Dilbert.)
The bottom line? Cheryl Locke said she was going to ignore the recommendation of her own committee and uphold my termination. I would be receiving written notice in the mail shortly.
And I am left with these questions:
* Why would UAB insist that I have two unsupported written warnings in my file? What would UAB stand to gain from that? Answer: UAB would have nothing to gain from it. But someone external to UAB would, and they want to see me quietly lured me back to UAB under conditions that would allow me to be fired all over again--in a nice, clean way this time. (Warning: Schnauzers aren't known for going quietly.)
* Why would UAB insist that I return to something other than my old job? Again, what does UAB stand to gain from that? I've already answered that one: They don't want someone spilling the beans about who really is behind my termination. If I remember correctly, UAB has an animal-care facility about 30 or 40 miles from the main campus, in Childersburg or Sylacauga or some such location. They probably would send me to that facility and make me the chief s**t shoveler.
* Why would Cheryl Locke tell me verbally that I would not be allowed to blog anymore if I return to UAB? And make no mistake about it, that's what she said. I have it in my written notes that she was concerned about how a blog would affect my "representation" of UAB. She simply backed down when I asked her to make that statement in writing. If anyone can show how my current blog represents UAB in any way, please let me know. To repeat a question, what would UAB stand to gain from this proposal, given that my blog clearly has nothing to do with the university? Answer: UAB wouldn't gain anything, but someone external to the university would, and that someone still wants to see me out of the blogging business.
A final thought: Being unemployed, when you feel like you should be working, is no fun. Being unemployed when you were cheated out of your job is even less fun. But this firing, in a macabre kind of way, validates what we are doing here at Legal Schnauzer.
If I was some loon, who had his facts messed up and his law mangled, no one would care about it--and I would still have my job. But we are presenting the truth here, and these truths make some folks uncomfortable--so much so that they are willing to take extreme measures to see to it that I lost my job.
I never felt like this blog needed validation from anyone; I knew all along I was on target. But I take some satisfaction that the thugs behind my termination have proven just how on target I really am.
One other side benefit to being unemployed: It has given me more time to truly "research my blog"--on my own time, as I've done it all along. But thanks to UAB, I now have more time to call my own. And we schnauzers like to use our free time wisely.
I've used my free time to uncover some most interesting facts about UAB, some of the people who run it, some people who caused it to make serious missteps, and a justice system that has turned a blind eye to those missteps. I've also uncovered some interesting facts about the GOP power junkies who are riding high these days in Alabama and Mississippi.
Is it possible they won't be riding high for much longer? And does all of this somehow converge in some way that helps explain my termination from UAB?
I think it does. And we will be laying it out in the days ahead.
Is UAB Playing Games With My Termination, Part II?
I expected the outcome of my grievance hearing to be straightforward.
Based on what Employee Relations representative Bobby Barnes said after the hearing, and based on what I read about the PRP procedure in the You & UAB Handbook, I thought the committee would either recommend that the termination be upheld or overturned. And I thought HR director Cheryl Locke would either accept or reject their written recommendation.
Sounds simple. But evidently, someone in the UAB chain of command did not want my case to be simple.
During the July 1 meeting, Locke quickly told me that the committee had recommended that my termination be overturned. Ah, good news.
But that was not all--not by a long shot.
Locke said that I would have to accept having two written warnings in my personnel file as a result of this episode. And I would not be able to return to my old job; I would have to accept an unspecified job, with an unspecified supervisor, with unspecified pay. For good measure, she also told me that I would not be able to blog, period, should I return to UAB. She said she was concerned about my "representation" of UAB.
Given my vague familiarity with this thing we call the First Amendment, this last proviso certainly gave me cause. In fact, the whole thing gave me pause, so I said I needed to think this over, and we rescheduled a second meeting for July 11.
I received nothing in writing at the July 1 meeting, so I thought it would be wise to check back with Locke--to make sure I heard what she said correctly.
The following e-mail was transmitted her way on July 3:
Cheryl:
I needed to check with on a couple of issues regarding the July 1 meeting I had with you (and Anita Bonasera and Bobby Barnes) about my PRP hearing:
* I need to discuss issues from that meeting with a couple of people, and due to the July 4 holiday, those folks are out of pocket. I need to reschedule our followup meeting, which we had set for July 7, to no earlier than July 9 (Wednesday). Most any time that day, or on July 10 or 11, will work for me.
* I was given nothing in writing at the July 1 meeting, so I want to make sure I understand the statements you made in that meeting. I understand the following:
(1) That the employee PRP committee recommended that my termination be overturned;
(2) If I return to UAB, it will be with two written warnings--one from April 2008 and one from June 2008--in my personnel file;
(3) I will not be reinstated to my old job in UAB Publications. If I return to UAB, it would be in an unspecified position, with an unspecified supervisor, at unspecified pay;
(4) No reason was given as to why I could not return to my old job, and I was not informed as to who made that determination;
(5) If I return to UAB, I would not be allowed to continue writing my blog, Legal Schnauzer. I gather I would not be allowed to write any blog at all.
Please confirm that these were the main points presented to me in our July 1 meeting. If you need to add to, or subtract from, any of these, please let me know.
Thank you,
Roger Shuler
----------------------------------------------
Here is the reply I received from Ms. Locke on July 3:
Roger,
I understand you wanting to carefully weigh all factors. How about we reschedule the meeting for July 11th at 11:00am? Again I’ve asked Anita and Bobby to be present. Please allow me to provide clarification to your bullet statements:
1. The committee recommended that you be reinstated. The rationale behind their recommendation was simply that they believe that you should be given a written warning in lieu of termination for neglect of duty.
2. You will have two written warnings upon return to UAB.
3. You will be returned to UAB with the same former pay. Based on your two written warnings, my intent is to work with you to provide you with the best opportunity to succeed which is why I have solicited your input on this matter.
4. See #3 above.
5. I did not say that you would not be allowed to write on your personal blog during personal time.
I look forward to talking with you again on July 11th.
Cheryl E.H. Locke
---------------------------------------
This raised my Schnauzer hackles a tad. So I responded with this:
Cheryl:
Thanks for your reply. I've got the new meeting time on my schedule.
Just one note regarding item No. 5. My writing on my blog has been totally on my personal time already. The IT representative who monitored my computer usage testified to that at the hearing. He was asked multiple times, "Did Roger write on his blog, using his UAB computer." Answer: No.
Just for the record, there is no evidence that I conducted research for my blog on UAB time or equipment either. I've not even seen a definition in UAB policy of what constitutes "research" on the Web.
Consider this: If an employee uses his work computer to check the Weather Channel site for the next day's forecast, sees that it's going to be cold, and then wears a coat the next day, is that "research" for his "personal use?" If an employee uses her work computer to check the Target site to see their prices on a possible birthday gift for her daughter, and then goes to the store to buy the gift, is that "research" for her "personal use?"
Should these employees be fired? What percentage of the UAB workforce would be fired under this scenario--80 to 90 percent?
One final thing: While I respect the committee's diligence during the hearing, I wholeheartedly disagree with their apparent finding regarding neglect of duty. In fact, it's not a matter of opinion. I sat through the whole hearing, and there was zero evidence to support a finding that I had neglected my duty. Pam Powell was asked several times to present documentation to support that claim, and I didn't see her provide any. And that's because there isn't any. I know the status of all of my projects, and the day I was placed on administrative leave, they all were on track to be printed on time.
Also, I've heard references to my supposed excessive NWR (non-work related) activity. First of all, how would anyone know whether it was excessive or not when you have a sample size of one? No one else in our group was checked, and those are the people who have similar job descriptions to mine. I wouldn't be surprised if my "NWR" was the lowest in the group. But nobody bothered to check that because I was singled out for investigation and dismissal. Two, the person who made the determination that something was NWR (a term I've never seen defined in any UAB policy) was the same person I had filed a grievance against. Does anyone seriously think she could make an objective determination in this situation?
One final point (I promise): Several references were made in our July 1 meeting to the contents of UAB policy. For example, you noted that the university has a policy that deals specifically with computer use. (I still haven't been able to find that, by the way.) But I think we all can agree on one thing: UAB policy says, in as clear a language as possible, that a UAB employee is to use the grievance process without fear of penalty or reprisal. It's undisputed that I filed a grievance against Pam Powell on April 23. (I think that's the correct date.) Subsequent to that, I suffered the worst penalty a UAB employee can suffer--I was fired. If we are to take the UAB employee as law within our workplace, then by law, I could not be disciplined or terminated once I had filed a grievance against Pam Powell. Therefore, all of the issues involved in my termination (neglect of duty, etc.) could not go before the PRP committee--by law.
The fact that those issues did go before the committee--and the fact I was fired even though I had filed a grievance against the very supervisor who fired me--is a gross abuse of UAB policy. Does UAB policy matter or not? Are UAB employees governed by policy and procedure or the whims of supervisors?
As you can tell, I get wound up on this subject. But I thought it was important for me to share these thoughts.
Roger
------------------------------------
With that on the table, we proceeded to the July 11 meeting
(To be continued)
Based on what Employee Relations representative Bobby Barnes said after the hearing, and based on what I read about the PRP procedure in the You & UAB Handbook, I thought the committee would either recommend that the termination be upheld or overturned. And I thought HR director Cheryl Locke would either accept or reject their written recommendation.
Sounds simple. But evidently, someone in the UAB chain of command did not want my case to be simple.
During the July 1 meeting, Locke quickly told me that the committee had recommended that my termination be overturned. Ah, good news.
But that was not all--not by a long shot.
Locke said that I would have to accept having two written warnings in my personnel file as a result of this episode. And I would not be able to return to my old job; I would have to accept an unspecified job, with an unspecified supervisor, with unspecified pay. For good measure, she also told me that I would not be able to blog, period, should I return to UAB. She said she was concerned about my "representation" of UAB.
Given my vague familiarity with this thing we call the First Amendment, this last proviso certainly gave me cause. In fact, the whole thing gave me pause, so I said I needed to think this over, and we rescheduled a second meeting for July 11.
I received nothing in writing at the July 1 meeting, so I thought it would be wise to check back with Locke--to make sure I heard what she said correctly.
The following e-mail was transmitted her way on July 3:
Cheryl:
I needed to check with on a couple of issues regarding the July 1 meeting I had with you (and Anita Bonasera and Bobby Barnes) about my PRP hearing:
* I need to discuss issues from that meeting with a couple of people, and due to the July 4 holiday, those folks are out of pocket. I need to reschedule our followup meeting, which we had set for July 7, to no earlier than July 9 (Wednesday). Most any time that day, or on July 10 or 11, will work for me.
* I was given nothing in writing at the July 1 meeting, so I want to make sure I understand the statements you made in that meeting. I understand the following:
(1) That the employee PRP committee recommended that my termination be overturned;
(2) If I return to UAB, it will be with two written warnings--one from April 2008 and one from June 2008--in my personnel file;
(3) I will not be reinstated to my old job in UAB Publications. If I return to UAB, it would be in an unspecified position, with an unspecified supervisor, at unspecified pay;
(4) No reason was given as to why I could not return to my old job, and I was not informed as to who made that determination;
(5) If I return to UAB, I would not be allowed to continue writing my blog, Legal Schnauzer. I gather I would not be allowed to write any blog at all.
Please confirm that these were the main points presented to me in our July 1 meeting. If you need to add to, or subtract from, any of these, please let me know.
Thank you,
Roger Shuler
----------------------------------------------
Here is the reply I received from Ms. Locke on July 3:
Roger,
I understand you wanting to carefully weigh all factors. How about we reschedule the meeting for July 11th at 11:00am? Again I’ve asked Anita and Bobby to be present. Please allow me to provide clarification to your bullet statements:
1. The committee recommended that you be reinstated. The rationale behind their recommendation was simply that they believe that you should be given a written warning in lieu of termination for neglect of duty.
2. You will have two written warnings upon return to UAB.
3. You will be returned to UAB with the same former pay. Based on your two written warnings, my intent is to work with you to provide you with the best opportunity to succeed which is why I have solicited your input on this matter.
4. See #3 above.
5. I did not say that you would not be allowed to write on your personal blog during personal time.
I look forward to talking with you again on July 11th.
Cheryl E.H. Locke
---------------------------------------
This raised my Schnauzer hackles a tad. So I responded with this:
Cheryl:
Thanks for your reply. I've got the new meeting time on my schedule.
Just one note regarding item No. 5. My writing on my blog has been totally on my personal time already. The IT representative who monitored my computer usage testified to that at the hearing. He was asked multiple times, "Did Roger write on his blog, using his UAB computer." Answer: No.
Just for the record, there is no evidence that I conducted research for my blog on UAB time or equipment either. I've not even seen a definition in UAB policy of what constitutes "research" on the Web.
Consider this: If an employee uses his work computer to check the Weather Channel site for the next day's forecast, sees that it's going to be cold, and then wears a coat the next day, is that "research" for his "personal use?" If an employee uses her work computer to check the Target site to see their prices on a possible birthday gift for her daughter, and then goes to the store to buy the gift, is that "research" for her "personal use?"
Should these employees be fired? What percentage of the UAB workforce would be fired under this scenario--80 to 90 percent?
One final thing: While I respect the committee's diligence during the hearing, I wholeheartedly disagree with their apparent finding regarding neglect of duty. In fact, it's not a matter of opinion. I sat through the whole hearing, and there was zero evidence to support a finding that I had neglected my duty. Pam Powell was asked several times to present documentation to support that claim, and I didn't see her provide any. And that's because there isn't any. I know the status of all of my projects, and the day I was placed on administrative leave, they all were on track to be printed on time.
Also, I've heard references to my supposed excessive NWR (non-work related) activity. First of all, how would anyone know whether it was excessive or not when you have a sample size of one? No one else in our group was checked, and those are the people who have similar job descriptions to mine. I wouldn't be surprised if my "NWR" was the lowest in the group. But nobody bothered to check that because I was singled out for investigation and dismissal. Two, the person who made the determination that something was NWR (a term I've never seen defined in any UAB policy) was the same person I had filed a grievance against. Does anyone seriously think she could make an objective determination in this situation?
One final point (I promise): Several references were made in our July 1 meeting to the contents of UAB policy. For example, you noted that the university has a policy that deals specifically with computer use. (I still haven't been able to find that, by the way.) But I think we all can agree on one thing: UAB policy says, in as clear a language as possible, that a UAB employee is to use the grievance process without fear of penalty or reprisal. It's undisputed that I filed a grievance against Pam Powell on April 23. (I think that's the correct date.) Subsequent to that, I suffered the worst penalty a UAB employee can suffer--I was fired. If we are to take the UAB employee as law within our workplace, then by law, I could not be disciplined or terminated once I had filed a grievance against Pam Powell. Therefore, all of the issues involved in my termination (neglect of duty, etc.) could not go before the PRP committee--by law.
The fact that those issues did go before the committee--and the fact I was fired even though I had filed a grievance against the very supervisor who fired me--is a gross abuse of UAB policy. Does UAB policy matter or not? Are UAB employees governed by policy and procedure or the whims of supervisors?
As you can tell, I get wound up on this subject. But I thought it was important for me to share these thoughts.
Roger
------------------------------------
With that on the table, we proceeded to the July 11 meeting
(To be continued)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)