Time Since 8 July 2010: Years Days Hours Mins Secs
Click here to see more about these counters
top banner


168 Days: Attention To Detail

By Ken Snyder

This page is another specific example of 1) how negligent BPU was in handling my termination, and 2) how poorly handled the investigation of my USERRA case was by DOL-VETS. I can do this by using excerpts from the DOL-VETS file of my case, supplied by BPU's inept attorneys.

IF (a huge IF) I was performing my work so badly you would think there would be reams of paperwork supporting this claim. Guess what? There isn't. For starters, let's take a look at the most egregious example they provided:

Twenty-two pages, extremely well-documented, clear violation of established rules. Conduct Memorandum culminates the process. No doubt on this termination.

Now, let's look at their other example:

Only six pages, but a clear pattern is identified. FIVE evaluations, at 30-day intervals - all of which were witnessed by the employee (signatures redacted). A formal memorandum finishes the process, again with specific information.

In both of these cases, if the terminated employee has any question about the process BPU has a clear-cut evidence trail.

While we're taking a look at evals, let's see how Dunn's evals compare:

TWO evals, with precious little information added. Of course, the "evaluations" were conducted on one date, then the forms were "signed" on another. They didn't ask Dunn to backdate his signatures like they asked me to. Oddly enough, Dunn couldn't remember how many evaluations he was given, but keep in mind he got the chance to read them both and signed them.

With those identified, let's take a look at my files:

Only FIVE pages total, TWO of which we have determined were falsified. THREE evaluations, ONE falsified (as detailed on other pages) and unsigned. Only one specific accusation, and it's on the falsified evaluation. Had I not asked for a copy of my employee file (that DOL was able to finally get them to send to me) I would never had known this one existed.

Another thing that Kelvington glossed over was when Wonnell cried about being "short-staffed". Give me a break: a law firm with the number of lawyers their letter header shows, and all the locations their footer shows is "short-staffed"? Evidence here. Nothing more than another deny and delay tactic. He had a "heads-up" from DeLeon BEFORE they fired me, knew I wasn't going to just tuck my tail between my legs and crawl off, and NOW he can't get responses back to Kelvington because he's "short-staffed"? What about that 9th Commandment, Rob? (how religious of him!)

Had the DOL investigator done his job he would have noticed the lack of true evidence, as compared to the other two examples. He would have asked specific questions of Wonnell, Sieve-Wilson, and DeLeon (definitely) as to this and demanded more, specific examples - and possibly asked about the numerous projects and locations I sent him a detailed list of. He would have INSISTED that he stay on-task and on-time. Has this happened to others at BPU? Probably, and they've gotten away with it for the most part. Has this happened to other service members with DOL-VETS' record of poor investigation practices? We need to find out, and improve for the future.


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

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.