16th - Judge Garrety would not compel the deposition of several IRS employees that would have shed additional light on the case example: Ms. Tia Conner, Ms. Lara Veach.
:
1st - Judge Garrety refused to force Mr. Tom Roselius to testify
The appellant's prehearing submission included several witnesses that were not allowed to appear. One of the witnesses was Mr. Tom Roselius the initial manager involved in the 1995 complaint and the issuer of the verbal order to allow only job related communications between Ms. Dona Chewning and the appellant. He also said it was not is job to determine if Ms. Dona Chewning was lying. And he gave Mr. Lentine permission to communicate information about subpoenaing Ms. Chewning to appear during his divorce case. That fact makes several of Ms. Chewning EEO complaints acceptable communications. Had Mr. Lentine been given those EEO complaints prior to the deposition of Mr. Roselius, Mr. Lentine would have discussed the subpoenas during Mr. Tom Roselius' deposition. Since Mr. Lentine had no way of knowing what Ms. Chewning's complaints were until he seen the EEO file, he didn't know that she complained about being subpoenaed.
2nd Because Judge Garrety did not allow Mr. Tom Roselius to testify, he never got to find out that Mr. Roselius gave Mr. Lentine the authority to have job related communications with Ms. Dona Chewning from 1995 till Ms. Diana Nave updated that order during her counseling session in 1997. Ms. Dona Chewning however was under the misconception that no communications were allowed way back to 1995. That fact is documented in Ms. Dona Chewning's deposition. Mr. Roselius also gave the appellant the authority to communicate information about being subpoenaed to testify during his divorce case if an when that event occurred.
The following testimony from Mr. Tom Roselius' deposition (pages 9 though 12) documents the fact that job related communications were allowed between Ms. Dona Chewning and the appellant:
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Question Number 11: Would you consider a working environment where you are not allowed to talk to one of your boss's secretaries a good working environment?"
BY MR. ROSELIUS:
"I guess you'd have to clarify talking to her because, obviously, if we're talking about between you and Dona the issue was as long as it was about work-related business, that was the understanding of what it should be. How easy it is to avoid talking about anything else, I'm not sure."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Would you consider a document -- well, I might as well look it up. (Appellant's exhibit tab number A006 E-mail to Ms. Dona Chewning dated 9/27/1995 was presented) I am going to show you a document and ask you if you consider this a violation of that agreement?"
BY MS. LEWIS:
" I'm going to object. What agreement?"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"That I'm not supposed to talk to her except for business-related reasons."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Is that an agreement? Was there any kind of an agreement?"
BY MR. ROSELIUS:
"There was no formal agreement; it was just my counseling with him that we had verbally."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"So you instructed him?"
BY MR. ROSELIUS:
"I instructed him verbally, right. So this was from you to Dona. [Reviewing.]. So what was the question again?"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"I was just asking if you consider that -- is that a breach of the agreement?"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"I'm going to object again to calling it an agreement."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Well, I don't know what to call it. There is no formal -- "
BY MS. LEWIS:
"The manager indicates that he instructed you not the talk to her except for business purposes. Is that correct Mr. Roselius?"
BY MR. ROSELIUS:
"Right, right.
BY MS. LEWIS:
"So that's not an agreement."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"What is it?"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"It's an instruction."
BY MR. ROSELIUS:
"Well, I guess you were commending her for something that she did on the job --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Right"
BY MR. ROSELIUS:
" -- for sending out the information and you did an outstanding job. I wouldn't see that first part as a problem. Then the P.S., you start to talk about taste in music. I suppose that's strictly not job related. You probably didn't have to go there, but -- "
BY MR. LENTINE:
"You see that as really a problem though?"
BY MR. ROSELIUS:
"I don't know. I don't even think I've ever seen that particular e-mail before, so I -- it's hard to say just looking at a piece of paper and not knowing in what context it was done whether it was a problem or not. It could have been a simple comment. I don't know."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following testimony was taken from Ms. Dona Chewning's deposition pages 30 though 33:
BY MR. LENTINE.
"Okay, on October 10th you've got a complaint that I stuffed your VMS message, asking to set up a meeting with Tom Roselius to discuss my evaluation. You say that's not job related, too?
By Ms. Chewning
"I didn't say that wasn't job related, but you threw in there something about harassment, sexual harassment charges. And my problem with that voice message was that you were told not to contact me, period, at that point."
BY Mr. Lentine
"No, this is '96. Tom Roselius told me in '95 it was only job related."
BY MS. Chewning:
"Early '95, whenever this started. At this point, he had told you not to contact me for work-related or otherwise. And even if he didn't, I did. If I'm not mistaken in that, I told you I didn't want to talk to you."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"But normally people don't schedule meetings with the branch chief through the secretary, you're telling me?"
BY MS CHEWNING:
"That's normal, but because of all that's going on, it wasn't normal. It was you were supposed to talk to Tia, go through Tia, or there is Cathy, or any of the other secretaries. You didn't have to go through me."
BY MR. LENTINE
"When did I get those directions?"
BY MS CHEWNING:
"I don't remember the specific date."
BY MR. LENTINE
"Who gave me those directions?"
BY MS CHEWNING:
"I would assume it was Tom. I don't recall off the top of my head, but he was the supervisor, so I guess it came from him."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"He's next, so I'll talk to him. Okay, on March 14th you got a letter notifying you, Tia, Tom and John that you are going to be subpoenaed to appear in my divorce case. You earlier got an e-mail saying that eventually that was going to happen. Tom had told me earlier that he would address that situation when it happened. Again, I think I had an official reason to notify everyone, and everyone got the same letter. Do you think that letter was scary?"
BY MS. CHEWNING:
"No, not scary, but I believe that we were notified via subpoena, so why would you have to e-mail me to let me know and everyone else?"
BY MR. LENTINE
"It was a regular letter, I don't think it was an e-mail. I know it wasn't an e-mail."
BY MS. CHEWNING:
"It was an e-mail."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"There was an e-mail way earlier saying that some day that was going to happen. And Tom Roselius told me we would worry about that when it happened, but the letter was delivered in the mail. On June 2, 1997, you had Randy Smith deliver the notice of no trespass to your residence. What's the justification for that complaint?"
BY MS. CHEWNING
"I didn't want you anywhere near my house, so I had him serve that. I don't think I need a justification. I'm entitled to be able to do that."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"I think that maybe you're harassing me."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"That's not a question. You don't need to answer."
As discussed during Mr. Tom Roselius' testimony, job related communications were allowed. Yet this e-mail (tab A006 Page A416) and many other authorized work related communications were in the EEO file as a complaints and the supervisors never even seen the complaints before the hearing. In this case, since there was no other context involved, he had no reason to believe that official communication was harassment. The appellant was a supervisor under Mr. Roselius at the time and Ms. Dona Chewning was Mr. Roselius' secretary. Ms. Dona Chewning sent the first message to the appellant and he responded to initial e-mail.
The question is why wasn't her complaint investigated at the time? Why wasn't the appellant told about that complaint when it happened. The whole mess might have been avoided. But because the faulty documentation was allowed to accumulate later less knowledgeable managers used that information to decide that the appellant had continually harassed Ms. Dona Chewning and was not going to learn to stop.
Had this and many more unjustified complaints been removed from the file, management would not have had the justification to remove the appellant and they might have investigated the case instead of jumping the gun.
Unfortunately, Judge Garrety has decided to keep the EEO complaint information protected so the world will never know how unjust the EEO process can be. How many similar cases are there in the country were good employee are being fired or counseled because of unjust complaints that they can't find out about. As documented in the case, I couldn't get a copy of the EEO complaint until I compelled the court to make the agency provide a copy.
During the hearing, Ms. Diana Nave, Mr. John Jardinier and Mr. James Mitcham all indicated that they never seen the complaint file either. But Ms. Diana Nave counseled me; Mr. John Jardinier issued me a reprimand; and Mr. James Mitcham removed me all without seeing or investigating the EEO complaint file that was used to justified their actions.
3rd - The Agency never proved that Mr. Tom Roselius' 1995 order to allow work related communications was changed by Ms. Diana Nave prior to her 1997 counseling session with Mr. Charles Lentine.
The appellant contends that the attempted phone call to Ms. Dona Chewning on May 7, 1997 was job related. In the following testimony, Ms. Diana Nave states that she determined that the phone call was not job related because Mr. Lentine told her so. She also states that she attended a fact finding session with Prescella Walker and Mr. Lentine. Mr. Lentine disputed that fact by saying he never attended a meeting with Prescella Walker and Ms. Diana Nave. Mr. Lentine's memory is correct based on the evidence. Page A-207 of exhibit A043 contains the EEO synopsis of events. The entry dated May 29, 1997 states that only Ms. Diana Nave attended the EEO fact finding meeting. During that meeting she admitted that Mr. Lentine was allowed work related communication with Ms. Dona Chewning. The May 27, 1997 entry (still page a-207 tab A043) was an interview with Ms. Dona Chewning. During that interview Ms. Dona Chewning admitted that Mr. Lentine was allowed only work related communications. During the EEO interviews Mr. Lentine said that the phone call was job related. That fact is documented in Prescella Walker's e-mail dated June 5, 1997 which is part of the EEO file (Page A222 tab A043). Since the phone call was job related Mr. Lentine was making an authorized communication. Ms. Nave tries to convince the court that she had already told him that he was not allowed any communications with Ms. Dona Chewning because of a previous change in orders. Even Ms. Chewning's interview disputes that contention. This document also proves that Ms. Chewning lied or could not remember during her deposition. During that testimony she was sure Mr. Tom Roselius had given the order to disallow all communications some time back. The following testimony was extracted from Ms. Diana Nave's testimony during the hearing:
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Let the record show that I am directing the witness' testimony -- witness' attention to the document contained in the Agency file at tab 4D, item PP, P for Paul, P for Paul."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Would you take a look at that document and, and tell us if you're familiar with it and identify it for the record?"
BY MS. Nave:
"Yes, I am familiar with this document."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"And what is the document?"
BY MS. Nave:
"It's a counseling -- it recorded a counseling session that I had with Chuck on June 4th, 1997."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Now the document I believe refers to contact between Mr. Lentine and another employee. How did you learn about this contact?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"The EEO office contacted me that Chuck had made, well, the EEO, the EEO office contacted me that there was an employee that made an informal complaint to them, and she did not want Chuck to have any contact with her."
BY MS LEWIS:
"Was this the first time you had had any information about the employee who did not want to have contact with Mr. Lentine?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"No, this was I think the second incident."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Do you -- go ahead, I'm sorry."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Okay. This incident was the, the employee did not want to have any contact with Chuck either work related or non work related. Prior to that, we had some verbal communication that Chuck was only to have work related contact with the employee, and he could not have any non-work related. So this time it was don't have any contact with her at all, either work
related or non-work related.
BY MS. LEWIS:
"A minute ago when you were answering the question, you used the pronoun "we." Who is the "we" had communication about contact between Mr. Lentine and this other employee?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Well, EEO came and talked to me, and based on my direction from EEO and LR, I'm the one that talked with Chuck."
BY MS LEWIS:
"Okay, now are we talking about the incident that precedes the one that gave rise to the memo at sub tab 4PP, the earlier incident, or are we talking about this incident, the one that's reflected in the memo at sub tab PP?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Both incidents I would have received some guidance from those areas."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"In either instance, either the one preceding the incident mentioned at sub tab 4PP, did you have any contact with this other employee that didn't want to have communication with Mr. Lentine?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"No."
BY MS LEWIS:
"Did I understand you to say that your communication was with LR, or did you say you also talked to, to someone else about this?"
BY MS NAVE:
"I talked to EEO, I talked to LR, and I talked to my branch chief."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"And that was Mr. Gavin."
BY MS NAVE:
"Uh-huh."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Okay. The document indicates that you conducted a fact-finding session with Mr. Lentine and a union representative, and it also indicates that you found the May 7th contact was not work related. One, would you tell us what kind of contact or attempted contact was involved on May 7th, 1997?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Chuck attempted to contact Donna via the telephone. He made a telephone call to her desk."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"And since you said attempted, I conclude that he didn't reach her on that occasion, May, the May 7th, 1997."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Correct. One of her coworkers answered the phone."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Okay. The document at tab, sub tab 4PP indicates that after that fact-finding you concluded the contact was not work related. On what basis did you conclude that the contact or, or attempted contact on May 7th, 1997 was not work related?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"My recollection is that Chuck told me it was not work related."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"What information did you have about any prior instructions Mr. Lentine had concerning contact with Donna?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Prior to the two incidences that I --"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Yes."
BY MS. NAVE:
"I did not have any."
BY MS LEWIS:
"Did you learn anything as a result of discussions with EEO about prior instructions Mr. Lentine may have received about contacts with the other employee?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"No."
---------------------------- Removed several lines of questioning ------------------------------
BY MS. LEWIS:
"What happened after you counseled Mr. Lentine?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"After I counseled Chuck he, to my knowledge, he did not contact her again while he worked for me."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"So you considered that your counseling had taken care of the problem?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"After I talked with Chuck, he was off work for a few months, and when he returned, I assumed that my counseling took care of the problem, and he did not contact her again to my knowledge."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"There is another matter included in, in this June 4th, 1997 memorandum that does not concern Ms. Chewning -- I beg your pardon, the other employee. Would you have -- did you issue this counseling memorandum because of both these instances, or would you have issued the memorandum because of either instance or because of Ms. Chewning? Can you, can you give us an idea about the importance of the matters?"
BY MS. NAVE:
" The, the primary and I think the most serious situation was with the employee that, that approached EEO about the desire for Chuck not to contact her anymore. However, the other incident was also needed to be addressed, and I would have done a counseling session about that also."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"So are you saying that you would have had counseling sessions and issued memoranda on the events even if it had been separate --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Yes."
BY MS. LEWIS:
" -- separate counseling memos? After you ceased being Mr. Lentine's manager, and I believe you said that was in 1998."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Yes."
-------------------------- Removed several lines from here ----------------------------------------------
BY MS. LEWIS:
"No further questions."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"All right, Mr. Lentine."
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, my first question is you said you, you took this action because you got an employee's complaint, and it's your job to follow through on these complaints, right?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Um-hum."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"How can you follow through if you never talked to the employee that's making the complaint?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Because the EEO office was involved, and we follow their guidance."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"What proof, what proof do you have of what the employee told the EEO office?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I have -- the employee went to the EEO office. When I talked to you during that fact-finding session, you confirmed you tried to contact her for a non-work related matter, so that told me that --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Wait a minute. Okay, sorry. Go ahead."
BY MS. NAVE:
"So that told me that yes, you did try to contact her for non-work related, so that means that you did violate that, that you weren't supposed to. So since the employee's request was I don't want Chuck to contact me in any form, that's what we followed through with."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"What did I say the reason for the contact was?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I can't remember if you told me the reason or if you just said it was not work related because it's 19 --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"But you remember that I said it was non-work related."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Um-hum. It was -- even in the counseling memo it says it was the comment that the contact was not work related."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, well, how did you -- you say you determine it by me saying that, right?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Um-hum."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"How did you conclude that Donna Chewning made the complaint?"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Objection, that's been asked and answered."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Yeah, I think it has. I'll sustain the objection."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, you say you would have counseled anyone -- how many people did you counsel? How many, how many counseling sessions have you had over the years you've been a manager?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I've had numerous counseling sessions with employees over the years. I don't know if I can -- probably maybe 15."
MR. LENTINE:
"How many of them are for a first offense?"
MS. NAVE:
"Well --"
MS. LEWIS:
"I'm going to object to the way that's been characterized. I, I think first offense may be not, not clear what you mean by a first offense and, and how this employee would know whether or not this is a first offense or not."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay. For, for -- go back to the exhibit, and we're talking about the complaint from the employee, about -- it says employee walked past and you spoke in -- he spoke in a normal, congenial tone, and you responded in an unprofessional and discourteous manner."
BY MS. NAVE:
"So now you're talking about the situation with the second --"
BY MR. LENTINE
"Right, right. I'm trying to find --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Another coworker, okay."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"I'm trying to find out how many times do you write somebody up for just talking, having a bad day?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I think this was more than just a bad day. The employee came in and told me that in this particular occasion, but there were other occasions where your behavior was unprofessional and discourteous, and any employee of mine that does not treat another employee in a courteous manner, they're going to have a counseling session and told that that behavior is unacceptable."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"And you write them up in a letter."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Yes, I would."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"For a first time."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Yes, I would."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, and you said in your counseling -- in your discovery with myself that you told me how the employee felt that was making the EEO complaint. Where did you get that information from?"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"I think that's -- objection, I believe that's been asked and answered."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Well, I -- she said she didn't talk to him."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Do you mean the specific person?"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Right."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Okay."
By MS. LEWIS:
"Oh."
By JUDGE GARRETY:
"He --"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Withdrawn."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"We knew it was from EEO, but do you know the specific person's name who told you?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I talked with two people from EEO if you remember."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Yeah."
BY MS. NAVE:
"We had a session with Prescella Walker, you, me and Prescella, do you remember that, and Prescella talked to us about the situation and then --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"No, I don't remember having a -- I had one with Prescella and Rose Taylor, but you weren't there."
BY MS. NAVE:
"I remember the one time I think we were in A-102, you, me and Prescella, and we talked about it."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Go ahead and explain yourself."
By MS. NAVE:
"Well, I had -- well, I've had --"
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"So is, so is Prescella Walker the person from EEO who told you about the complaint?"
By MS. NAVE:
"I remember having conversations with Prescella Walker and with Rose Taylor."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Rose Taylor, okay."
BY MS. NAVE:
"That's my recollection. I mean it's been in 1997 and I don't have --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"So they told you how Donna Chewning felt."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Um-hum."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, in my exhibits page A-186 --"
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Which, which exhibit is that?"
By MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, it's Exhibit No. A-43."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Okay."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"And actually this is a letter that I -- LR is writing to a position psychiatrist I guess, and in that first paragraph it says the -- he's -- that I was -- that I subpoenaed coworkers including two women whom he has barred from communicating with in the work place. What I'm asking for on this is at what, what reference there, what knowledge do you have about me not being able to talk to two employees?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Related to this?"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Related to anything. I mean you were my manager. Do you know of anybody else that I was barred from talking to?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"No."
------------------------Removed several lines from here ------------------------------------------
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, and on page 204 to 206 in the same tab (A-043) is Donna Chewning's log of what she sees as the complaints. I've kind of highlighted them. I mean you can read them if you want or you can, we can look at this layout here, and I just want to talk about the different points, and you can tell me which one you think is a sexual harassment complaint and which ones you think are legitimate. Should have brought tape --"
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Is that just a summary of what's in the --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"That's a summary of what's there so --"
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"We'll, we'll use the exhibit. I think --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, that's fine with me, but I'll use this myself so I can check what's going on. Okay, the first one there is her notification of the actual physical, the actual original complaint, so that's --"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"That's all right. I'll, I'll struggle -- you need to see it. I'm sorry."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Right, wait a minute."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Well, let me ask you, Ms. Nave, do you -- have you seen this list before that Ms. Chewning prepared?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"No. No."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"All right, so I guess I'm not sure what relevance Ms. Nave's views about this would be, Mr. Lentine."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Well, I'm trying to find out where her first complaint was. She said there was two complaints. She has the complaint where I was, I was written up for. Which one of these is the first complaint that you can't remember or that you don't have --"
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"All right, well, that's, that's an appropriate question. I'll allow that. Your memo refers to a prior incident."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Right."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"He's just wondering which one on there, if you can locate it, where it is. Your memo --"
By MS. NAVE:
"I don't --"
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"-- indicates there was a telephone contact on May 7th."
BY MS. NAVE:
"I really don't know -- I do not remember what the first incident was that Donna did not want Chuck to contact her for non-work related matters. That was not documented to my knowledge. It's just oral --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Well, I'm saying --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"-- and I don't remember."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"I'm saying this is Donna's log. Show me the one that's, that's the first complaint."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Well, Judge --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I don't remember which one it was."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, well, let me, let me recall what -- when were you my manager? Wasn't it from 1996?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Um-hum."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, so -- Why don't you get -- well, do you remember when you were reassigned into the DBA area? Yes, okay, that should be in my, the letter for downgrade here someplace. Looks like May 7th, '96 -- 8/13. So it was effective May 12th, '96 so that's probably when I -- that's when I started working on May 12th, 1996."
BY MS. NAVE:
"I'm assuming it was, it was either -- you started work in May. It was probably either the CC mail or the voice mail."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, so let's just go back --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I really don't --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, well, let's just start with, let's just start with, which CC mail, the one on the 7th, May 7th, which I didn't start work for
you until the 12th, but we could start with that one."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"May 7th of what year?"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Of '96, okay, and that says -- that's a CC mail from me to Tom Roselius, John Jardinier, Walt Brown about
my divorce case and the possibility that they may be involved, and they may be subpoenaed."
By MS. NAVE:
"It says, it says Chuck sent CC mail to me, Tom Roselius, John Jardinier and Walt Brown about his divorce case
and the possibility we may be involved, so that may have been the one where she said this is not work related."
By MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, well, let's, let's see if we can find that E-mail, May -- E-mail -- that's A-014. Let's check that out and see if that's job related or not. Of course, if this is the one in your complaint, you're already really familiar with this one anyway, right?"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"I'm confused."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Well, she said the first complaint she already was aware of, so the second complaint she wrote me up."
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Okay."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"If this is the first complaint, she's aware of this information."
BY MS. NAVE:
"Chuck, it wasn't documented. I didn't see files. It happened in 1997. I don't remember --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay."
BY MS. NAVE:
"-- every incident in every --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Well, let's check page --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"-- situation."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"-- 402, A-402."
BY MS. NAVE:
"So now what's the question?"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Is this a job-related E-mail? Are you familiar with this?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I don't recall it but --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Do you think you would remember this if you had been involved in this?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I don't know. I get about 100 E-mails a day."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"So this is an ordinary type of thing that you would forget."
BY MS. NAVE:
"I can't remember if I remember this E-mail or if I don't."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay. Okay, do you think that's job related?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"No, I don't think it is job related."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"So your pay is not job related?"
BY MS. LEWIS:
"Judge, we're going to object to arguing with the witness. She said she, she thinks it's not job related."
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"Well --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, okay --"
By JUDGE GARRETY:
"-- he's, he's allowed to, you know --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Well --"
BY JUDGE GARRETY:
"-- this is cross-examination too so --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Well, it says here likely to become a very important part of my divorce case. If that happens, the employees listed above might also be involved. So to me the gist of this E-mail is you're telling these people you may have to be involved with my divorce case, and I do not think that's job related."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay, but you're saying your pay is not job related?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"The E-mail says --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"The question is your pay is not job related?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"Your --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"No --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"-- your pay is job related to you and to your management and LR. Your pay is not job related to a secretary or administrative person assigned to another area."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay. Well, if they played a role in getting your pay changed, would they be in, would it be job related?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"That person is in no line of authority to do anything about your pay, and I, I don't think it's job related to that person."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay. Okay, let's go -- take -- basically you didn't really remember that E-mail and --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I don't remember that E-mail."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay. Okay, now this next one is October 10th, a VMS message to me saying you want to set up a meeting with Tom Roselius to discuss your departure rating and sexual harassment issues. Do you remember that?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I recall you told me you wanted to talk to Tom Roselius about your departure rating --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"But do you -- is this a complaint you remember from Donna Chewning?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"No, I don't remember this."
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay. Do you think if that was her complaint, you would remember it?"
BY MS. NAVE:
"I don't recall if EEO gave me a list of all these and said -- what I remember is I took it very seriously, that EEO was involved, and all of our training with EEO is you respect it, and you follow direction and that's what I did, and that person complaining to EEO has a right to privacy, and I would not press EEO for all the details."
BY MR. LENTINE;
"Well, what words did they --"
BY MS. NAVE:
"And they may have provided that to me, but I would not have documented it. I would not have kept any files. It's something
very confidential --"
BY MR. LENTINE:
"Okay."
4th - Judge Garrety refused to force the agency to provide the visitor access lists
During Ms. Chewning's deposition she denied visiting the IRS Martinsburg Computing Center on a regular basis. Mr. Lentine asked the agency for copies of the access logs to prove that Ms. Chewning was accessing the facility several times a week. The agency denied his request and Judge Garrety refused Mr. Lentine's request to get the court to compel the agency to make the information available. Mr. Lentine contends that one of the reasons Ms. Dona Chewning was visiting the IRS Martinsburg Computing Center on a regular basis was to tease him and get him into trouble. The other reason might be to see her lesbian girlfriends but she use Mr. Lentine to hide the fact that she was lesbian. President Clinton's DON'T ASK DON'T TELL POLICY JUST DON'T WORK and it's not fare to the straight people of the world. Some day there wouldn't be any special people. We'll all be AMERICANS or whatever is the new government at that time. This country is getting more divided all the time. And you know what they say UNITED WE STAND AND DIVIDED WE'LL FALL. Special interest groups, business and minorities are dividing the country. This country should be run for the good of everyone. Not the group with the most clout at the time.
5th - Judge Garrety refused to force the agency to produce a copy of the removal file
During Mr. James Mitcham deposition he mentioned the fact that he reviewed the agency's removal file before deciding to remove Mr. Lentine. Since that file was not turned over during discovery, Mr. Lentine asked the agency for a copy of that file. They refused so Mr. Lentine again asked Judge Garrety to force the agency to provide a copy of that file. The agency said that file was destroyed but they contended that all the information was already provided to the courts. When Mr. James Mitcham was questioned during the hearing he could not find anything in the EEO file that justified his actions. The agency should have been required to document which documents were in the removal file. The appellant believes that Ms. Lewis has never seen the removal file and couldn't find them either. The IRS seems to have studied under Arthur Anderson and Enron. And follows the golden rule, "When you get caught, SHRED, SHRED, SHRED." The appellant believes that the agency's file is incomplete and the appellant was not given a fair hearing. How can the appellant defend himself against a removal action when the agency no longer has the documentation that they used to justify the removal. All the documents could have been phony. Why was the agency so quick to shred the removal file? Is this another Enron/Authur Anderson type of cover up?
6th - There was no preponderance of evidence to give the agency authority to deny the appellant his right to investigate and defend himself against the unjust complaints
According to the EEO file (Tab A043 Page 205 Wednesday August 16, 1995) Mr. Tom Roselius talked to Mr. Lentine on that date and asked him to limit communications to just job related information. The following are her complaints since that order:
- 10/18/19995 I notified my boss's secretary (Ms. Dona Chewning) that I changed residences and had a new phone number. Via a VMS (voice message system) and I told her I moved within 3 miles of her house (because I left my ex-wife and needed a furnished apartment ASAP). I didn't explain all that because I was suppose to keep communication at a job related level. She didn't need to know that the apartment was big and well furnished for the price. It wasn't were I wanted to live but I didn't have time to wait for the perfect apartment at the prefect price. This is Voice Mail Message has to be considered Job Related and authorized. Employees are required to keep their managers informed concerning their residence and home phone numbers. So the manager's secretary keep that information up to date. Since Mr. Roselius was my manager at the time and Ms. Chewning was his secretary this was a legal Job Related call and it should not have been in the EEO complaint file or the removal file if it was.
- 11/9/1995 My response to her e-mail to me (see tab A006). As a manager under Mr. Tom Roselius, I often received e-mails from his secretary (Ms. Dona Chewning). In this case Ms. Chewning sent me an e-mail about the status of a recent Survey Feedback Action. My response was to thank her for the information and tell what a nice job she did. My PS was just to add a little fun to the job. It was a work related communication. This is the same e-mail that Mr. Roselius reviewed during his deposition. At that time he saw very little wrong with the e-mail. No other communications happened at the time. I was in fact in a different building teaching an 8 week class and had not seen or heard from her in some time. Again this communication was Job Related and should not have been in the EEO complaint file or the removal file if it was.
- 11/?/1995 Ms. Chewning found a letter on her desk. Since I was teaching the ALC class or on furlough at the time, I don't think I wrote that letter. I suspect that she is referring to the letter I gave her on August 27, 1995 (see tab A005 pages A417-A418). At that time I was trying to fixed the hostile working environment that the agency was forcing me to work in. I bet she misplaced the letter and found it several months later. If it's not the same letter, I'd like to see it. Maybe I never wrote it.
- 11/13/1995 That call sounds pretty job related to me. I'm not sure when it happened. That was the day before they furloughed half the center (see Tab A007 Page A414-A415). So I was teaching the ALC class at the time. I don't think that's the right date. At any rate, I was trying to create a better working environment and let her know that I wasn't complaining about her complaints.
- ?????????? Now she met with Mr. Tom Roselius and Ms. Rose Taylor. Why wasn't I told about it? Why did I have to wait 6 years to find out about it? The fact that she met with my boss and the EEO office should not be considered a violation of Mr. Roselius' order to limit communications to just Job Related information. This item does not involve any communications on my part. I hope this item wasn't in the removal file.
- 12/15/1995 Ms. Dona Chewning sent me an e-mail out of the blue. That's not a harassment complaint against me but it might be against her. Again this item should not me a complaint against me. So it shouldn't be in the removal file or the EEO complaint file.
- 12/18/1995 Ms. Dona Chewning was notified that I read her e-mail message dated 12/15/1995. Again not a harassment complaint against anyone.
- 3/4/1996 Mr. Lentine sent Ms. Tia Conner a copy of Ms. Dona Chewning's e-mail (tab A009 Page A412) and asked Ms. Tia Conner to run interference for him with Ms. Dona Chewning. Again why was that an EEO complaint against Mr. Lentine. Why wouldn't Judge Garrety let Ms. Tia Conner be deposed and/or questioned during the hearing? The restriction was to limit communications between the appellant and Ms. Dona Chewning. There was not restriction between Ms. Tia Conner and Mr. Lentine. The fact that Ms. Tia Conner forwarded the e-mail to Ms. Dona Chewning is not Mr. Lentine's problem. This item should not have been in the EEO complaint file or the removal file.
- 4/27/1996 I admit I had an extra ticket to the Baltimore Baseball game and I knew Ms. Dona Chewning was a Baltimore fan and had never been to a game. So I tried to sell or give her my extra ticket. I also thought it might be a way to fix the hostile working environment. I'll never make that mistake again. I admit this one. Nice guys finish last when dealing with lesbians. I wouldn't make that mistake again. But I understand why she is so scared of me. If I messed with someone's mind till I got them in trouble, I be worried that they might try and get even. Lesbians hiding in the closet have a lot to fear if they are using straight men to help hide.
- 4/29/1996 Since Ms. Chewning never answered the e-mail dated 4/27/1996 and I was in class in DC, I had to call and find out if she wanted the ticket. If she didn't want to go I might be able to get Ms. Lara Veach or Ms. Karen Nugent to go with me. They were both attending the same class in DC so we could have commuted together. As it turned out, it was a rainy day and I decide not to go. Contrary to Ms. Dona Chewning's testimony, she never really said no. She acted like someone was listening and she couldn't talk. So I had to say, "Are you trying to say you don't want to go" and she said "Yes, do you under stand?" Since she wouldn't say no I assumed Mr. Tom Roselius was listening in and she didn't want to get into trouble with her boss for seeing another employee. Looking back I now think that Ms. Kathy Maloof and Ms. Tia Conner were both listening in. Ms. Kathy Maloof was Ms. Dona Chewning's lover and Ms. Tia Conner was trying to get me and Ms. Dona Chewning together. But Ms. Dona Chewning had the hots of Ms. Tia Conner so she pretended to be straight in order to get to be good friends with Ms. Tia Conner. I know it might seem far fetched but it's the only thing that makes any sense to me. These complaints are pretty stupid. I had an outstanding record till Ms. Dona Chewning came along. She's the one that's using all the tricks to get me interested only to document a complaint and then make sure no one investigates it. Can this really be a fare and just system?
-5/7/1996 My e-mail notifying everyone that they might be forced to testify during my divorce case was job related. I was sure that my change to lower grade would be discussed because of the alimony and retirement issues. I also wanted the court to known that a retirement from the IRS was not a given. I had recently been furloughed and the agency was looking into contracting out. So I might not get to retire from the government. So the problems at work were going to become part of my divorce case and I was sure I'd have to prove my points by calling witnesses. As it turned out my lawyer didn't push to have the IRS employees at the hearing and the judge decided I didn't have enough evidence to prove that my retirement wasn't a given. My dumb lawyer was sure we had said enough and we didn't need those witnesses. Well now I'm sure I didn't need him. He was worthless during the trail. I think he thought I was in trouble because the Department Of Judice was keeping witnesses from testifying during my case. So he didn't push things. He was affair I was hiding something that might make the case worse. So the agency and the Department Of Judice helped my ex-wife win a much bigger divorce settlement. Once again an outstanding employee for close to 30 years got no help from his employer. Is it any wonder that businesses are failing left and right. There is no employee or employer loyalty. So they both fight cheat and steal from each other. The result is poor products, waste and destruction of the agency and/or business.
- 10/10/1996 Left Ms. Dona Chewning (Mr. Tom Roselius' secretary) a VMS message asking her to setup a departure rating meeting. I wanted to discuss the evaluation he just gave me. I don't remember saying sexual harassment issues. Since I had a written set of questions and they are documented on Pages A386-A389 Tab A020, I don't think I said that. This was a Job Related. Again it should not have been in the EEO complaint file or the removal file. But who knows what was in the removal file.
- 1/21/1997 I sent Ms. Tia Conner an e-mail concerning some people I knew and a party they had. At the time I thought they were related to Ms. Dona Chewning. Anyway the e-mail was to Ms. Tia Conner not Ms. Dona Chewning. It did not violate Mr. Tom Roselius' order not to communicate with Ms. Dona Chewning. The fact that Ms. Tia Conner decided to forward the e-mail message to Ms. Dona Chewning is not my problem. Maybe Ms. Dona Chewning should file a complaint against Ms. Tia Conner and ask her to stop sending messages to her that came from me unless they were job related. So again this complaint should not be in the EEO complaint file and I hope it was not in the removal file.
- 1/23/1997 Ms. Dona Chewning met with Ms. Rose Taylor to discuss the events. Again not a harassment complaint against me
- 3/14/1997 My US Mail letter to Ms. Dona Chewning, Mr. Tom Roselius, Mr. John Jardinier and Ms. Tia Conner (Tab A027 Pages A352-A358) telling them that they were going to be subpoenaed and giving them a copy of my lawyer's prehearing submission with their names on it. This communication was approved my Mr. Tom Roselius back in May 1996. After I sent the e-mail sent on May 7, 1996 (Tab A014). At that time he said Ms. Dona Chewning, Mr. John Jardinier, Ms. Tia Conner and Mr. Walt Brown didn't have to know about the divorce case till it happened. Well the time had arrived. And I was letting them know they were going to be subpoenaed. To bad Judge Garrety decide not to make Mr. Tom Roselius testify during the hearing. This issue might have been settled at that time. Since I hadn't been given a copy of the EEO file till after Mr. Tom Roselius' deposition, I didn't know about Ms. Dona Chewning's complaints. So I didn't know that my subpoena information was counted as an EEO violation. Again I hope this complaint wasn't in the removal file.
- 3/18/1997 Ms. Dona Chewning sent Mr. Tom Roselius a letter about the subpoena. Again not an EEO compliant against me.
- 3/18/1997 Ms. Dona Chewning met with Ms.Rose Taylor to discuss the steps in filing a formal harassment complaint were. To bad they didn't do it at this point. Mr. Tom Roselius and I would have told the EEO office that the communication was authorized back in 1996 and not a harassment complaint.
- 3/28/1997 Ms. Dona Chewning, Ms. Tia Conner, MR. Tom Roselius, and Mr. John Jardinier all received subpoenas. Again why is that a harassment complaint? They were notified that it was coming and Mr. Tom Roselius had said they didn't want to know about it till it happened. Well now it was happening. So it was a legal communication not harassment. Again I hope this complaint was not in the removal file.
- 5/7/1997 I called Ms. Dona Chewning to discuss the junk mail that was still being sent to my old address. Since she was the branch secretary she was in charge of that stuff. Unfortunately, she wasn't in so I said I'd call back. I was allowed job related communications and as I told the EEO investigators this was a job related communications so it was authorized and should not have been in the EEO file. Ms. Diana Nave has a bad memory. She was sure I was in the EEO meeting with her but the minutes said I wasn't there. So I suspect the fact that she remembers I said the call was not job related is also a faulty memory. I know it was job related and that's the only reason I called her.
7th - Judge Garrety did not take into account the fact that the communications between 1995 and 1997 were job related and authorized not continued violations of a verbal order. They should not have been in the EEO complaint file or the agency's removal file. Since the removal file was never provided the appellant has no way of defending himself or disproving the complaints. I suspect that many of the faulty EEO complaints from the EEO complaint file were used to justify Mr. Lentine's removal. Just how justified that Reprimand and Removal action can not be determined based on the lack of evidence provided by the agency.
Judge Garrety did not want to discuss the why the agency refused to discuss many of the prior EEO complaints and why the agency refuse to allow IRS employees to testify during his divorce case. In fact in Judge Garrety decision, he decided to believe the agency's witnesses even though their testimony contradicted the documents provided to the court and the appellant's testimony. Judge Garrety assumes that the agency's employees would not all lie to protect their couriers even though the evidence proved they were lying. Judge Garrety went even further by allowing the agency to withhold evidence (he would not force the agency to produce the visitor access log or the removal file). The access log would have proved that Ms. Dona Chewning lied multiple times during her testimony. The removal file might have explained why Mr. James Mitcham removed Mr. Lentine without knowing anything about his previous contributions to the agency.
Just how Judge Garrety could allow the agency to use the excuse that only the current day of the access list in onsite is beyond me. The appellant offered to research the information and make any needed copies. The agency should not have been allowed to use the excuse that it was to expensive to get and copy the information. In today's world of terrorism and the need for outstanding security policies, keeping the access log off-site and on paper rather than online created a big security problem that the agency should have addressed by now. If not the IRS' security policies should be investigated by some one more technical than GAO.
Judge Garrety and Agency actions sound very much like the actions of Enron and Authur Anderson. If the information is not positive shred it or find reasons not to provide it to the defendant. How can the court uphold the punishment of an employee when the agency fails to provide full disclosure. It wasn't till the appellant asked the court to compel the release of the EEO file that the agency finally release a copy. Since that document raises a lot of doubt and concern they convinced the court to protect the information. Again it sounds like an attempt by the agency to cover up their illegal activities. That too sounds like an Enron and Authur Anderson approach to protecting themselves.
8th - Judge Garrety did not allow Mr. Tom Roselius to testify, so he never learned that Mr. Roselius also approved future communications related to the appellant's pending divorce.
That fact was not discussed during the deposition of Mr. Roselius because the appellant had not been given a copy of the EEO file yet. So the appellant had no way of knowing that Ms. Dona Chewning had reported her notification about being subpoenaed as a harassment complaint. Just like all the agency's witnesses, Mr. Lentine had never see the EEO file till the agency was compelled to release the information. The appellant believes that the EEO laws are unjust and need to be changed. The accused has to be given a copy of all complaints and be allowed to interview the accuser in order to avoid misunderstandings and unjust complaints.
As pointed out in various letter from the appellant to Judge Garrety, in our legal system a person is suppose to be innocent till proven guilty. The EEO laws go the other way. The accused is guilty till proven innocent and the accused has no rights.
Our legal system is based in the concept that it's better to let one guilty person go free rather than punish one innocent person. The EEO laws are written in a way that makes it more important to punish the innocent than let one guilty person go unpunished. Since the crimes involved are by no means as destructive as the ones covered by are regular legal system that concept make no sense.
I tried on several occasions to get Judge Garrety to consider this case to be a president setting case but he failed to see my points. My only hope is that some day soon one of his employees files an unjust EEO complaint against him. Sometimes people just don't wake up till it effect them. Just ask the families of someone killed in the NY city terrorist attack what they think about airport security today.
.
9th - Judge Garrety failed to consider that fact that not only was the 1997 attempted communication job related but also that communications was never completed. Ms. Diana Nave was sure she gave the appellant a prior warning but couldn't remember why or when and had no documentation. Yet her counseling session talked about that fact that the attempted call was not job related. The appellant told the EEO investigators that the call was job related and that fact is documented. So Ms. Diana Nave justified her unjust counseling session by creating a previous warning that never happened.
As documented above, Ms. Diana Nave testify that she only changed the order after the attempted phone call. Even the EEO investigation notes document the fact that Ms. Dona Chewning and Ms. Diana Nave knew that job related communications were allowed. So the agency was required to prove that the 1997 attempted phone call was not job related. Since that was never proved, the agency harassed Mr. Lentine and that unjust punishment caused him mental stress which lead to a extended sickness. The employee never complained because he was innocent and was not given his union rights. He was also not allowed to investigate the case. He was not allowed to see the complaints and he was not allowed to face the accuser.
10th - Judge Garrety failed to consider the appellants complaint that he had the legal right to defend himself against the agency's reprimand and removal actions. Mr. Charles Lentine's communications were attempts to investigate the case and defend himself.
The e-mail that lead to the reprimand (tab A042 Page A258) was the appellant's attempt to understand why Ms. Dona Chewning acts one way in public and a different way when she reports problems to management. It appears as if Ms. Dona Chewning is a lesbian trying to hide in the closet. She used Mr. Lentine to convince her friends that she liked men (Mr. Lentine) but used the EEO system to keep Mr. Lentine from dating her. The result was that every one thought she just couldn't win the man she told them she wanted. This e-mail was only the appellant's attempt to get Ms. Dona Chewning to explain why she sent so many conflicting signals.
The e-mail that lead to the removal (tab A042 Page A263) was appellant's attempt to get information from the accuser to defend himself against the Reprimand. I guess this is not a free country. The defendant can not defend himself because he can not talk or write to the accused. Since the NTEU office was not very interested in representing him there was no other choice. This country has to allow an accused to ask the accuser for an explanation about the complaint especial when the agency wouldn't give him a copy of the EEO complaint file. The e-mail was also asking why the agency would not explain why the IRS employees were not allowed to testify during his divorce case.
Based on the fact that the agency tried to withhold the EEO complaint file and was able to deny the appellant the following information:
- Why IRS employees were not allowed to testify during his divorce case
- A copy of the 2000 visitor access log or access to view and copy pages
- A copy of the removal file that was used to justify the appellant's removal
It sure looks like the appellant was right to think that the agency was hiding something. The appellant assumed that Ms. Dona Chewning might have more information. Especially since the agency's employees never talked to Ms. Dona Chewning. How can the agency punish some one without reviewing the complaints and talking to the accuser and the accused. Something is wrong with his system/picture.
11th - Judge Garrety failed to consider the fact that Mr. James Mitcham knew absolutely nothing about Mr. Charles Lentine's accomplishments over the years. Thus he knew nothing about his value to the service. So there was a major procedural error.
The union contract require the agency to consider the value of the employee and the disruption that the activity caused. The e-mail was sent from the appellant's private personal e-mail system during non-duty hours. The accuser received the e-mail on her private personal e-mail system, so the impact on the service was very minimal at best.
Yet the value of Mr. Lentine and his contributions is almost limitless. Over the years Mr. Lentine automated numerous manual processes and increased programmer and operator productivity's by developing and support tools that he created. Mr. Lentine took the IRS out the punch card operating system to an online automated system. His tools helped the non-technical employees learn to use online systems and prepared the IRS for the future high tech world.
Over the years, Mr. Lentine saved the IRS millions maybe as many as a billion dollars. Yet Mr. Mitcham had to admit that he knew nothing about any of Mr. Lentine's accomplishments. As Mr. Lentine documented in his letters to Judge Garrety, the IRS has a big management problem. To many of their managers no nothing or close to nothing about the technical side of the business. They make all their decisions based on administrative rules and procedures. They might have worked in the days before computer but in today's fast changing world of high tech and fast pace, they need redesign the management program. None of Mr. Lentine's supervisors were technical enough to understand what he did for the service much less write or review an employee evaluation. Non-technical managers should not be supervising technical employees and/or technical managers. Would you want a computer operator manager supervising a tax auditing sections. I hope not. If you allow that then you better expect something like the Enron problem. Managers have to be able to review, test, and debug their employee's work. Mr. James Mitcham, Mr. John Jardinier, Ms. Diana Nave and Mr. Paul Gavin are all incapable of reviewing much less understanding any of my work. So there is no way that Mr. Mitcham or Judge Garrety for that matter can ever determine my value to the service and the fact that he decide to remove me proves it.
12th - Judge Garrety failed to take into account that none of Ms. Dona Chewning's complaints were investigated as required by the EEO system. Had they been investigated the agency would have found them to be job related and authorized.
Since the EEO file was never seen by any of the managers involved, no one knew anything about any of the complaints. In fact the appellant was not even told about 75% of Ms. Dona Chewning's entries in her EEO complaint file. Had ever one of her complaints been properly investigated most of them would never been put in the file. That would have significant reduced the importance to the problem and would have helped the accused understand what was going on. The accused was never told about most of Ms. Dona Chewning's communications with the EEO office. So he had no idea that this authorized communications were being counted as EEO violations. That might explain why Mr. James Mitcham thought the problem was occurring more times that the appellant thought. If the removal file was made available that problem might be easier to understand.
13th - Judge Garrety discussed the nexus point but failed to explain how Mr. Charles Lentine's actions effect the agency and how that out weighed his value to the service. That's the same error that Mr. James Mitcham made.
Again since Judge Garrety and Mr. James Mitcham know nothing about the job that a mainframe computer system programmer performs they have no way of understanding the appellant's value to the agency. Unfortunately, Judge Garrety choice not to allow any non-manager to testify or be deposed. Had he decided to allow Ms. Lara Veach, Mr. Tom Hylton or Ms. Janice Bittner to be depose and/or testify he would have had a better understanding of the value of Mr. Lentine to the agency and the problem that IRS non-technical manager are having because they don't know anything about the work that their employee are responsible for. I hate to say it but the IRS has to many wasted staff years in upper management. The employees should be paid more and have more responsibility because they have the knowledge and skills needed to make the technical decisions that will make the agency successful. The administrative managers now in power are not prepared to run a modernized business. I suspect that their training program is the same one the agency has used for years and years. Unless that program is changed and the levels of management reduced the agency is going to be inefficient and wasteful. That may someday be the fall of our government.
14th - Judge Garrety and the agency failed to take the mitigating circumstances into account.
Mr. Lentine's communications that lead to the Reprimand and Removal were both attempts to investigate the problem something that the agency failed to do. The EEO Office might have investigated some of the complaints but not most of them. When they did investigate an EEO compliant, they failed to give the accused any information about the complaints. So Mr. Lentine had to do is own investigation. Also the EEO system does not give the accused the option to defend himself or herself. So if as in this case the EEO employee assigned to the case is not interested in proving the accused innocent, then the accused will have no way to defend himself or herself.
15th - Judge Garrety found Ms. Dona Chewning's testimony to be more credible than the appellant even though Ms. Dona Chewning lied during her deposition and during the hearing. Mr. Charles Lentine never lies.
Ms. Chewning denied visiting the IRS Martinsburg Computing Center during her deposition but when I pointed out that Mr. Dick Bednarski was with me on one occasion, she changed her story. During the hearing she said she didn't own an short miniskirt. Unfortunately, Judge Garrety did not allow Mr. Dick Bednarski to testify, he would have verify the fact that the day he and I witnessed Ms. Dona Chewning at the center she was indeed wearing a very short miniskirt. Maybe she borrowed it but she definitely was wearing it.
Ms. Chewning also lied during the deposition and hearing about never exchanging Christmas gifts. But when I produced the gift I gave her she changed her testimony. So she was caught lying in front of Judge Garrety yet her decided to believe her and the other useless administrative IRS managers.
16th - Judge Garrety would not compel the deposition of several IRS employees that would have shed additional light on the case example: Ms. Tia Conner, Ms. Lara Veach, Mr. Dick Bednarski
Judge Garrety restricted the case to just the agency's case and refused to allow the appellant to investigate the case by approving the deposition of technical witnesses. Only the IRS managers that in most cases never met Ms. Dona Chewning and knew nothing about the working environment that we both worked in. As stated during this case, Ms. Dona Chewning could be a lesbian in hiding. President Bill Clinton's don't ask don't tell idea just don't work. Straight people have a right to know. Especially if the gay person is trying to look straight but using the EEO system keep the secret.
In conclusion, based on the lack of evidence and faulty testimony, the appellant believes that the IRS did not have a legal right to restrict his investigation of the complaints. After the appellant was given a Reprimand and ended up defending himself, he should have been given the right to communicate with Ms. Dona Chewning in order to defend himself. The Notice Of Adverse Action should have added more fuel to the authorization. If not then this isn't a free country and the innocent has no rights. Does anyone want to live in a world were everyone is guilty till proven innocent and the accused is not allowed to talk to anyone about the case. How can that person defend himself or herself? In America you use to be innocent till proven guilty. I hope we get back to that law before the country suffers and/or we need another revolution. Maybe it's time for the good law abiding citizens to find a new country. Our country was founded by people looking for a free world. I'm looking and I hope Australia is that world.
__________________________________ _____________________________
(Date) Chuck Lentine
Project Manager, Inventor
& Technical Expert
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the attached Document(s) was (were) mailed, unless otherwise indicated below, this day to each of the following
The Clerk of the Board
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Northeastern Regional Office
2nd and Chestnut Streets, Room 501
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106-2987
The Clerk of the Board
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419
Agency Representative
Attorney Mary Lewis
Internal Revenue Service
950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20024
__________________________________ _____________________________
(Date) Chuck Lentine
Project Manager, Inventor
& Technical Expert
