|
Supreme Court of Nevada Main St. Carson City, NV |
14 February 1991 |
|
Re: Case #19781, Decision Filed March 27, 1990 Dear Justices, Accept this letter as my challenge to the referenced Decision made by this Court. Perhaps if lay People were more encouraged to directly participate in the legal industry(fn1) your confusion and therefore complete lack of base for the ruling would have been avoided. It is ironic that this Court sanctioned my dismissal (for reasons of inadequate Performance and communications) when an adequate review of my case (including listening to me) would have resulted in a correct decision. Indeed, the Court's rationale was more public relations than legal justification. Did the Court use selective information to justify its Decision, rather than using all available information to form an opinion? I will show in this letter that the Court grossly misused their power to accomplish a Predetermined decision.(fn2) Whether there was legal or moral corruption will depend on the readers interpretation of the Court's thinking as mistakes or intentional. Keep in mind that mine was just one of several Court opinions that clearly limit or reverse the decisions and legislative gains of the early 1980's. My examples will show the use of prejudice, selective use of information, an amateurishly inconsistent use of conservative and liberal interpretations (whichever supported the desired results), and conveniently ignored legal arguments favoring my Appeal. In addition I will point out the superliminal and superconscious messages sent by this decision. In order to understand my logic it is necessary to know my premises and the "facts". I would like to state the premises as questions; which I have a hard time believing haven't been clearly answered. Can a supervisor use false allegations of a subordinate's performance to actuate a dismissal? If the accusations for dismissal are solidly proven false during the review process yet the dismissal is upheld: is the review legitimate? If the answer to either question is yes, then why have a review process? (fn1) My experience with the Nevada legal community has caused me to disregard it as the Justice System for the more appropriate "legal industry". (fn2) I will display a genuine schizophrenic behavior toward the Court's culpability for this Decision. Was the Court naive and confused or was the result predetermined? In either case one thing is certain, the Decision was wrong (legally and morally). Intellectually, the Court may have decided to ignore the facts, in order to support a conservative view towards employer/employee relations. Nevada Supreme Court Page 2 In one sense there was great relief when I received the 1985 Evaluation and dismissal. Finally, there would be an opportunity, via a peer committee reviewing the allegations and my documented rebuttal, to air and hopefully resolve the actual problems. When this forum was denied, it was obvious (based on the Hidy-Watson connection) that fairness was not going to be the rule. Although I continued with the administrative process I was banking on the courts for resolution: what I found was an S&L. The "facts" referred to above are presented in ENDNOTES. They are "facts" because I know them to be true and I can directly support most all statements with documentation. They are not facts in a legal sense because they have not formally been accepted by a jury; a process this Court's decision denied me. A process that would have proven my superior's allegations false and DRI's administrative review illegitimate. If a review process ignores the "facts" in favor of preclusion), can I challenge its legitimacy? What is a "REVIEW"? According to a lay dictionary a "REVIEW implies an INTENT to revise". Black's Law concurs: "consideration for PURPOSES of correction." (See Black's for citations.) Co-conspirator Dr. George Hidy (Hidy), then President of the Desert Research Institute (DRI), in his deposition, furthers these definitions to the UNS Code (Code) intent and DRI context by stating, the review "protects a DRI professional from the capricious actions of his supervisor." This was only his expressed opinion; however, it was consistent with the general DRI professional staff, and he was the final link in the review process. In all respects his actions were not consistent with precedent, the "facts", or his understanding of the review. The first issue the Court appears confused on was the applicable Code-defined procedure governing my dismissal(fn3). The Court contends: "nonrenewal and disciplinary actions are separate actions and we reject appellant's attempt to apply the 'for cause' provisions of Chapter 6 to nonrenewals which do not require 'cause'." The Court also admits that there was no Code provision for nonrenewal situations at the time my final contract was signed. The Court, in contiguous paragraphs, contradicts itself by first stating no link between "nonrenewal" (Section 5.2.4) and "cause" (Chapter 6) while next admitting that I had received the "REQUIRED WRITTEN REASONS for denial of reappointment." According to Black's Law "CAUSE" is "a REASON for an action or condition." Ballentine's Law concurs: "that which decides action or constitutes the REASON why anything is done"; additionally the definition given for "REASON" simply "CAUSE. This establishes that at worst my contract was not renewed for "CAUSE": and clearly, "CAUSE", via my 1965 Evaluation, was intentionally given. (fn3) I will use dismissal to represent any involuntary separation. Nevada Supreme Court Page 3 The Court admits 1 was given "reasons" which stated "his overall performance differed substantially from standards expected from EEEC professionals", and that this and others are "more like a reference to incompetence". A quick glance at Section 6.2.1(a) "Failure to Perform duties...", (b) "Failure to maintain a required level of performance..." and (c) "Incompetence" offer strong indications that my direct supervisor and Evaluation author, Dr. John Watson (Watson), used these explicit "causes" to initiate my dismissal; the ultimate disciplinary act. There is also much information to show conclusively that neither Watson nor Dr. Thomas Hoffer (Hoffer), coconspirator, knew that a nonrenewal provision existed.[ENDNOTE 1] Based on definition, availability of Code procedure, admitted intent of the defendants, and intent of the Code (especially as its protections apply to DRI professional staff) Chapter 6 provisions should apply. Because DRI professionals are not eligible for "tenure", and rely mainly on contract (non-State) funding, Sections 5.8.3 and 5.8.4 were to add to the general UNS Faculty protections of Chapter 6. In all three situations "reasons" for dismissal can or must be reviewed by a peer committee. The common understanding among professionals was that contract nonrenewal would be treated as a termination occurring at the end of a contract period. To conclude: the intent was termination; the "response" were Code defined "causes"(fn4): termination was the object of Hoffer's transmittal memo and conversation; nonrenewal was used synonymously(fn5) by coincidence due to the timing of events; and a nonrenewal clause did not exist. Given these facts, and nothing to the contrary, the Court must ignore definition, logic and intent to favor the Respondents (and support an anti-employee agenda?). The Court further misspeaks by concluding that although 5.2.4 didn't exist, to some extent "may not apply", and was not strictly followed by Hidy there's no concern because "there were no other existing provisions that gave the appellant any greater protection." This is flatly untrue. Chapter 6, by requiring a review committee consisting of peers rather than managers or administrators inherently offers greater protection as the Faculty Senate's actions indicate.[ENDNOTE 1] The recommendations from a peer review committee to Hidy would have been so strong and forceful that the Hidy-Watson connection couldn't remain effective and the termination would have been reversed. Strong and forceful because the committee would have been outraged at the lack of integrity of the Evaluation and transmittal correspondence, and as peers would expect (demand) more dignified treatment. Have you forgotten the reasons juries exist?[ENDNOTE 2] (fn4) It will be shown later that this argument is academic since a more correct word for the "reasons" or "causes", instigating my dismissal, is "allegations". (fn5) As a note of interest this Court, in McCrackin, uses termination interchangeably with nonrenewal and non-reemployment. Nevada Supreme Court Page 4 To summarize, the managers had more to gain (or less to lose) politically by not performing a legitimate review (addressing the points of my Response) and offering the correct recommendation; especially if they have undergone some actual or perceived intimidation. In turn Hidy would not question the action of Watson (and Hoffer). A peer committee could afford to be more aggressive and the Hidy-Watson connection would have been made impudent. The Court clearly overstepped its jurisdiction by forming their conclusion without the necessary "facts" and denying a jury trial to determine the "facts". I will continue by showing that even if the Court's erroneous conclusion of Chapter 6 inapplicability were accepted, there were SUBSTANTIAL portions of Section 5.2.4 with which the administration did not comply. The Court errors by conveniently forgetting to debate the fact that Hidy made his final decision before receiving any recommendations. Although Hidy stated, under oath, that he did receive recommendations, both Warburton and Stojanoff denied, under oath, that they made any such recommendations in writing or verbally. Additionally, Stojanoff's correspondence was undeniably dated after Hidy's final decision. Section 5.2.4 emphatically requires "Final action SHALL be taken within a reasonable amount of time by the president AFTER receipt of the recommendations." According to the dictionary a synonym for "SHALL" is "MUST". Black's Law concurs in its definition of "SHALL": "As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or MANDATORY" (see reference for citations). Rule 2(Definitions of words and terms) of NRS Vol. 1 "Supreme Court Rules", Part 1 "General Provisions" (p. 219, rev. 1/91) itself, in Definition 9 proclaims, "'SHALL' is MANDATORY, and 'may' is 'permissive'." Hidy displays an understanding of this process in his 25 June 1985 letter, his 13 August 1985 memo and his deposition; yet fails to comply. The Court acknowledges: "Appellant further contends that even if Section 5.2.4 applies ... Hidy upheld the denial before he received Stojanoff's recommendation." Yet the Court (conveniently) offers no rationale dismissing it. My proceedings use McCrackin to argue that if a procedure exists it should be followed. In the case of McCrackin the procedure was defined in statute: a difference the Court used to reject my claim. However, if a Code defined procedure (accepted by the Court) doesn't carry the weight of statute then why does this Court waste time arguing procedural applicability on pages 2, 3 and 4, as opposed to a simple statement: if the DRI wishes to dismiss you, then, good-bye. In fact the Court tries desperately to convince me that "the University fully complied with RELEVANT provisions of the Code pertaining to nonreappointment"; yet, clearly admit the full procedure was not followed. Nevada Supreme Court Page 5 Does a Code procedure have some quasi-statute value where you can pick and choose which provisions are "relevant" and worthy of compliance?(fn6) I agree that a presentation of "written reasons" and taking final action within a "reasonable time" are not superficial provisions; however. they are trivial compared to the burdens of validity of "written reasons" and making a final decision only "after receipt of the recommendations." Would this Court dare write a final decision before receiving briefs? To summarize this very straight-forward Point: the Court apparently ignored the impossible task of trying to justify their view which opposes the obvious. Thus the Court's desired opinion would be preserved. The Court, because I received "written reasons" (albeit false) and "Hidy took action 'within a reasonable time'" (albeit before receiving the required recommendations), was insistently able to "conclude that the University fully complied with Section 5.2.4." I would like to focus on the implication that if false accusations are made within defined time constraints this Court accepts them. Although not specifically stated in Sections 5.2.4 or 6.2.1; shouldn't even a very conservative interpretation assume a "valid" in front of "reasons" or "cause"? My sole contention from the very beginning has been the false accusations and untruths contained in the Evaluation and transmittal correspondence (and the expectation of a legitimate review). If the "reasons" were true, then I wouldn't object to the Court's decision (even with the other erroneous conclusions addressed above). In fact there wouldn't have been a suit. For, if I were the person described in the 1985 Evaluation my conscience would not have allowed me to be a scientist at DRI or elsewhere. Your decision not only acquits the Defendants of my charges but inherently makes me guilty of the Evaluation allegations. The Court claims: "The reasons given for Appellant's nonrenewal were that his overall performance differed substantially from the standards expected from EEEC professionals; that his stated dislike of quality assurance (QA)work was incompatible with his role as QA officer for the EEEC; and that communication problems with his managers reduce his effectiveness as the QA officer." On what assurance does the Court rely that these claims are true? (fn7) Am I to conclude that the Court relied on the "review process" to determine the allegations' validity?(fn8) Why do you think Hidy was included as a Defendant for charges of conspiracy? The question is not why SHOULD you believe me, but, why DID you believe them?(fn9) Were you prejudiced by their status? (fn6) In Richardson (70 Nev 144, 261 P2d 515) the Court clearly established a solid relation between Code procedures and statute: "Section 7728, NCL 1929, fixing the powers and duties of the board of regents and authorizing the board 'To prescribe rules for their own government, and for the government of the university,' wisely delegated to the regents the authority in their discretion to establish SUCH rules as the tenure rule above described. In our opinion this rule having been duly established, HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF STATUTE." The Court cites several cases in support and concluded that this view "indeed seems to be the general rule." Nevada Supreme Court Page 6 Additionally, was the Court displaying a blatant prejudice against the average worker? Did this Court accept Farmer's arguments because he was a superstar salesman? I mention this possibility only because of the attitude and statements of Zeh (based on experience) that my case would be easier if there was clear indication that I was a "superstar". Our situations and suits are very similar if not identical: both had negative supervisors attempting to dismiss a subordinate for illegitimate reasons.[ENDNOTE 3] The only significant difference that I could see, and obviously impressed the Court, was the monetary importance as a yardstick. Farmer was a salesman and I therefore agree that one indicator in his case should be a dollar value for sales. My position was technical and I performed well above standards defined for QA work; as my clients, reports and early evaluations illustrate. In the quote above, concerning my performance, the Court appears very emphatic about the reasons justifying my dismissal. The Court, however, obviously chose to merely parrot the reasons paraphrased by the Respondents' lawyer (AS IF FACT) rather than consulting appropriate original documents (the 1985 Evaluation and my Response) or more correctly and efficiently permitting a jury trial to review and determine the status of all pertinent information. This Court's sole charge is to see that individuals have received a fair hearing for just this reason; and if you err you are to err on the side of question (which can then be answered by a jury). (fn7) This Court in ABS v. John Farmer logically and correctly states: "The court must assume that the jury believed all of the evidence which was helpful to Farmer and also that the jury inferred favorable conclusions from this evidence." The evidence referenced is almost identical to my complaints that untrue negative information was used to dismiss me: additionally the general DRI professional staff believed that one could only be dismissed for good cause. The Court in Farmer also cites K Mart Y. Ponsock in support. (fn8) A Graves' (299 Mass. 80, 12 N.E.2d 176, 179) opinion quote cited in Richardson (70 Nev 347, 269 P2d 269 and 70 Nev 144, 261 P2d 515) is clear: "While the decision whether proper charges have been substantiated rests with the school committee, an affirmative decision can be rendered ONLY when the TRUTH of the charges has been supported by evidence ADEQUATE IN LAW TO WARRANT THAT CONCLUSION." (fn9) Hoffer's Evaluation transmittal correspondence gives the appearance of legitimacy, "Naturally, I consulted with his superiors, peers and subordinates during the preparation of this evaluation." However, in his deposition he admits only talking to one peer, in a bar, a few years prior to the evaluation, and one secretary (a lady whose loyalty belonged to those promising her advancement to professional status), The Court in Richardson (70 Ney 347, 269 P2d 265) was repulsed by this sort of integrity: "Even if the item had significance, the hearsay and gossipy nature of the reported incident leaves it entirely unimpressive." Since the Evaluation's author, Hoffer, Warburton, Stojanoff and Hidy never attempted to verify the allegations against me "hearsay and gossipy" are solely applicable. Nevada Supreme Court Page 7 The Respondents' award winning brief and the Court's six-page Decision reminded me of a basic scientific rule: perfect logic is useless without (correct) "facts". One of the things I am most proud of is that neither my supervisor nor the courts could find a single legitimate reason for their respective actions. The Court was remiss in not reviewing or allowing a review of my Response before making such a statement much less a decision. A discussion of the three items quoted above will be brief because most arguments and supporting documentation were presented by my 107 page Response to the 1985 Evaluation, and request for redetermination. The first presumption, "his overall performance differed substantially from standards expected from EEEC professionals", forms the basis of the 1985 Evaluation. My Response more than adequately demolishes the validity of at least five items with little controversy.[ENDNOTE 4] The remaining items are opinions that were sufficiently addressed by my supporting documentation.[ENDNOTE 5] Thus, my documentation, a proven lack of credibility exposed by the concrete items and the lack of documentation presented by the Defendants would have (rightly) given me an overwhelming edge in front of a jury. Beyond the obvious I ask the esoteric: what EEEC standards? This implies formality, uniformity and common understanding. The Court's third stated reason "communication problems with his managers reduced his effectiveness" is at best confusing and solidly inconsistent with all the facts (many included in my Response).(fn10) The Court's statement is immediately inaccurate on several levels. First, "managers" (plural) is used. Did the Court mean "manager" since I had only one direct supervisor, Watson (Director ARL), no contact with Warburton (Director ASC) and never met Gold or Hidy (VP and President of DRI, respectively)? Not likely since we had no technically relevant reason to communicate: 1) Watson knew absolutely nothing about QA and 2) he cared only superficially for anything beyond his receptor model work.[ENDNOTE 6] Based on the 1985 Evaluation (the sole source of "reasons" for my dismissal) Watson is not the likely object of the Court's statement; however, allegations subsequent to the Evaluation (an indication that my Response successfully countered the Evaluation) included a communication, bordering on insubordination, problem with Watson. Because these new allegations were not given within the Evaluation, but rather offered by Stojanoff (as hearsay). I was never afforded the opportunity to present a response.[ENDNOTE 7] (fn10) Even Stojanoff, in his deposition, admitted that after becoming aware of a communication problem in July 1985, he "couldn't determine whose problem." The ENDNOTES and my file show the success of my decision, in December 1984, to formally document by example (via memo's, notes and telecons) the actual roots of this problem. Although consistent and clear, the results were ignored. Nevada Supreme Court Page 8 The next logical assumption as to whom " managers" may refer are Egami and Bowen: two professionals within ARL mentioned in the Evaluation,. However, this is erroneous because the ARL organization chart shows Watson as ARL Director and direct Supervisor (and evaluator) of Egami, Bowen and myself. Some would try to argue that I worked on projects managed by Egami or Bowen. This is true but naive. Common sense and EPA edict plainly state that an individual performing QA work (and especially the QA head or officer) cannot be, in it position of being intimidated by project management. Could the Court simply have meant that there were poor communications between Egami and Bowen, and myself? Since an identical item appears in the Evaluation this is the most likely scenario. However, were "clashes" mainly caused by a difference in perspective? They believed I worked FOR them while I operated as though I worked WITH them. Is it also possible that I was more loyal to the data than the client (and therefore funding)? Although incorrectly stated by the Court "MANAGERS" significantly, (and prejudiciously) adds to the intolerance of this (alleged) deficiency. [ENDNOTE 8] It appears the communication problem itself wasn't wholly important to this Court; rather, its result ("reduced his effectiveness") was the real object. There are, in fact., a few examples from my 1985 documentation efforts where the lack of response to my (January 1985, March 1985, 6 June 1985, 26 June 1985, and 15 August 1985) memo's hindered or jeopardized the work on three of my QA projects. Before discussing the Court's second reason "his stated dislike of QA work was incompatible with his role as QA officer" I highly recommend that you tie your wrists lest you succumb to a logical suicide urge. This "reason" was the most painful for me to read in the Court's eloquently presented, but completely dishonest, Decision. It also illustrates another prejudice: that "dislikes" for ones work automatically and universally translates into poor performance. First, and foremost, I was not hired to do QA work. Second, the reasons I was asked by Steele and accepted a QA role (essentially replacing Hoffer) were: 1) its importance to environmental work; 2) my technical skills (practical and theoretical knowledge of instrumentation), communication abilities and enthusiasm were at a level necessary to satisfactorily accomplish the task; and 3) a willingness to put "dislikes" aside for the betterment of DRI by filling the QA void, an immediate priority.[ENDNOTE 9] Deserving major note is that this item was extracted from my 1984 Response and was never part of the 1985 Evaluation; the sole document supporting dismissal. The context of the inclusive paragraphs conveniently ignored, was to indicate (once more only with stronger language) that QA was not the desired end to my professional career(fn11) and that my "dislike" for QA was mainly caused by relations with people like Hoffer and Egami.[ENDNOTE 10] Nevada Supreme Court Page 9 Keep in mind that DRI went from near zero QA capabilities (under Hoffer) to a respected reputation Regionally (through my efforts). Neither Bowen nor Egami ever complained to me (despite my requests for suggestions) while every other client appreciated and praised my efforts. This was true despite the facts that I was the total full-time QA staff and we (ARL) were just beginning (in 1984) to purchase the most basic equipment.[ENDNOTE 11] To summarize, the QA effort was only ineffective when Hoffer or Egami were involved and not because of QA personnel. I could only perform audits and write reports stating results, problems and recommendations. I had no authority (or backing from management) to force project managers to read reports, much less act on them. Rather than giving up and accepting the inevitable results of poor quality data (from which environmental conclusions would be based) I took on the added responsibility of problem solving. The final point to be addressed is a statement from page 5 of the Decision: "While appellant might feel some awkwardness explaining to a new employee, why he left his previous job, the reasons given for his nonrenewal did not foreclose ...[his] opportunity to take advantage of other employment opportunities." Beyond the Court's previously addressed technical arguments and logic (which were easily proved frivolous) this is the single most insensitive and asinine remark of the whole Decision. There are few available positions in this field that I would be qualified to take. It is rare to find a workplace with such a position (as a means of entrance) and also offering an opportunity to do other projects in the atmospheric sciences. Exceptionally rare is finding an opening in this type of place for which I could even apply. Add to this tremendous burden the force of the 1985 Evaluation and/or remarks from Watson and the chance for substantive employment was nil. To admit to the Evaluation allegations would not only be wrong but demand instant rejection. Who would dare hire the person described in that Evaluation? I would not and I can't for a fraction of a second believe that this Court would. (fn11) I came to DRI to expand my knowledge and capabilities as an atmospheric scientist, however, my worst nightmare was realized by being pigeon holed and solely referred to in terms of a QA role. The power of this human compartmentalizing is not trivial, as my experience illustrated: 1) Warburton, during his deposition, said that he didn't consider retaining me at ASC after the dismissal because ASC didn't need a QA program; 2) Stojanoff, in his correspondence and deposition said, "if he didn't want to do QA work then why should he be kept with EEEC"; and 3) several potential employers, after reading my resume; ignored my letter of application and simply replied that no QA staff was needed. Nevada Supreme Court Page 10 Have you read the Evaluation? If so, you would comprehend the tremendous negative force that it contains, allow me to describe a few reactions from the Reno legal community, when I was seeking legal assistance. I was told to immediately leave the offices of at least three attorneys (two very rudely) without a chance to explain my side, or the fact that their reaction was the greatest reason for them to help. Dozens of other rejections were due to busy schedules, lack of interest or lack of sufficient monetary awards; however, a conservative estimate based on body language indicated that more than half were really saying, "get away from me." Were the courts also swayed? [ENDNOTE 12] During interviews I was in an immediate quandary. If I ignore the Evaluation, termination and law suit, and just tell the truth, then I would appear to be hiding the events or be considered dishonest if the interviewer should (and for a serious position would) call my last supervisor to substantiate our discussion. Obviously, Watson would reiterate or send) my final Evaluation; logically ending any further hope. On the other hand, there was no short or emotionless way to explain the situation and law suit; as you have discovered, on the surface I appear guilty. In either case two employment stoppers immediately surface: I'm argumentative (even with superiors), and I'll sue an employer. So what was the problem? And why was there a problem only with me? There are three basic answers: 1) I was in a position unique to all DRI; 2) my loyalties to the data were greater than loyalties to management (funding); and 3) nobody in ASC liked anyone else (especially Warburton, Hoffer, Watson and Egami) and I, because of my apolitical stance and introverted personality spelled insignificance to them. It was my position to be critical of measurement standards (physical and ethical) in order to attain the highest possible quality. Egami was a constant target of criticism because of his lack of integrity. Others (e.g., Freeman and data staff) were cognizant of Egami's actions, but they chose silence over confrontation (and job loss!). The Court's Decision contains many messages on a variety of levels. Most of my first impressions, occurring at the early stages, still seem to be valid; especially after gaining a better understanding of the legal industry. Several of the messages show a negative (even prejudiced) view of the common worker. I wish the Court (and/or the Nevada citizens) to understand the link between this elitist attitude and the current crises (e.g., violence drugs and suicide rates) in our country and especially this State. Nevada Supreme Court Page 11
ENDNOTES
ENDNOTE 1: The 1985 Evaluation, the sole document stating the "reasons" for dismissal, and its transmittal correspondence use nonrenewal and termination interchangeably. Warburton and Hidy correspondences use termination almost exclusively. Hoffer, in a direct conversation informing me of the dismissal, stated that a Faculty Senate committee would be formed to review the action (as Chapter 6 requires and Section 5.2.4 denies). Hidy, in mid-June when he was informed of Section 5.2.4 by UNS attorney Don Klasic (Klasic), immediately authored a letter to the Faculty Senate (see 2 July 1985 Senate minutes). The letter informed the Senate of the nonrenewal provision and recommended the Senate take appropriate action to assure DRI professionals of expected protections. A committee, headed by Watson, was formed to investigate the nonrenewal provision and recommend changes necessary to incorporate the added protections of all other sections relating to termination (cause, financial exigency and programmatic change). The result was a provision stating that dismissal of any type would be reviewed by a peer committee. Nevada Supreme Court Page 12 ENDNOTE 2: Had you allowed a jury to look at the actions and read the depositions of Dr. Joseph Warburton (Warburton), Director of the Atmospheric Sciences Center (ASC), and Dr. Cristo Stojanoff (Stojanoff), Director of EEEC, the following would have been evident: 1) Warburton was coerced by Dr. Al Gold (Gold), DRI veep, to initiate the dismissal; 2) Warburton, after ignoring the review for three weeks, sheds his responsibility to Stojanoff who attempts to pass it on back to Hoffer; 3) Stojanoff felt a decision at Hidy's level had already been made and that his recommendation would not, and did not, matter (a feeling so strong that he never started his promised three to four week, including interviews, review thought necessary to sort out the facts); 4) neither Warburton nor Stojanoff recommended to uphold my dismissal (either by written or oral communications); and 5) neither acknowledged the 22 pages of arguments and 85 pages of supporting documentation of my Response to the "reasons" defined in the 1985 Evaluation. I would also like to enter a strong statement concerning the brotherhood and camaraderie that forms at the manager/administrator level; probably the strongest reason Warburton and Stojanoff didn't perform valid reviews and produce strong recommendations in my favor. Keeping the procedure in the hands of weak (politically, morally and emotionally) and apathetic managers allowed Hidy to return a favor to his friend(s). A Trial would have also clearly shown a strong link between Hidy and Watson. Hidy, while a VP at ERT, gave Watson a powerful reference in support of his application to DRI. Watson, after arrival at DRI, spearheaded the drive to bring Hidy to DRI in the role of President. At professional/social events Watson was like a shadow to Hidy. ENDNOTE 3: Also, coconspirator Hoffer in six years never once made a kind, polite, encouraging or positive remark to or about me. He was always derogatory and on at least six occasions derided me at full voice in hallways or in the presence of a sponsor. Always his points and attitude were irrational. ENDNOTE 4: The First is part of Evaluation Item #1: Watson, Egami and I had a meeting in 1984 to review my performance. Plainly, the meeting never took place; yet, the burden was placed on me(fn12) to prove that some thing didn't happen. I could only offer information that would inductively rebut this claim: 1) given the climate, I would have required that these goals to be in writing (not even an informal list was ever submitted); and 2) why weren't these goals included in my 1984 Evaluation as required by the Code (5.4.3). The Second is also part of Evaluation Item #1: results of the $49,000 Lab development funds were "intangible". If the implication was that I misused the funds, a complete accounting is given in my Response and DRI financial statements. If the implication was that I was not doing enough to repay the funds (assuming it was a loan) then I refer you to Response Attachment 6 (Watson's 2 March 1983 memo to Kocmond requesting allocation of the funds): "This memo lists... and a method of recovering those costs from EXISTING PROJECTS." (fn12) Reference Warburton's 9 August 1985 memo: "Although I have not seen documentation on these goals ... I do not question that such goals were set." Nevada Supreme Court Page 13 The Third is part of Evaluation Item #2: I was not PI of the DEP project. According to Response Attachment 7d, Attachment 7e (5 December 1984 memo from Neumann to Craig and the Contractual Document Transmittal Form) and Attachment 7f (Current ASC Account Numbers) my name is consistently listed as PI. There is NO information to the contrary. The Fourth is also part of Evaluation Item #2: Watson and Egami wrote the DEP proposal. Response Attachment 7c is my hand written draft of the proposal. However, since this could have been written after the charge was made, a comparison of my audit philosophy to that of Watson's (see my 1984 Evaluation Response) distinctly identifies the author. Also check styles. The Fifth is Evaluation Item 5: inadequacy of my reports. I Can only offer the most direct evidence available; 1) my audit reports, and 2)my dismissal correspondence (especially the Response). Further, if you noticed no difference between items authored by Watson and the DEP proposal then there should definitely be no complaint. ENDNOTE 5: see 1965 Evaluation Response. ENDNOTE 6: I offer three examples of #2: 1) his lack of providing funding for ARL (traditionally the responsibility for ARL directors and supervisors)(fn13); 2) his lack of response or action to my complaints about Dick Egami's (Egami)total, disregard for QA and demoralizing actions(fn14) and general lack of integrity(fn15); and 3) never acknowledging the numerous requests to be involved, with more scientifically interesting projects. It is also noteworthy that Watson's lack of attention to ARL matters was not just the object of my complaints, but, also the subject of his annual performance evaluations by Warburton. Criticisms Watson openly bragged about. (fn13) ASC, from my arrival in 1979 to at least my departure in 1985, had two classes of professionals: 1) a sales force (managers, including Steele, Watson, Miller, Hoffer and Egami) who had higher and consistent contacts with funding level staff of current and potential sponsors; and 2) technical staff (scientists, Fred Rogers, Norm Robinson, Dave Schorran, John Bowen, Dan Freeman, Tony Reale, Paul Fransioli and myself) who did most of the actual contract work. This did not mean that each position was exclusive (for example, Miller and Watson primarily did the work for funds they had obtained), however, the bounds were definite. At the end of 1984 and the beginning of 1985 I was attempting to locate a funding source to develop two instruments. I was sternly chastised for contacting SCE and NV Power without first going through Bowen and Egami (professionals who had contracts with SCE and NV Power) although my funding would have nothing to do with those singular contracts. Precedent is on my side. Nevada Supreme Court page 14 This sort of thing is not in my Response because I felt the Egami items to be problems for internal correction (rather than unnecessarily causing DRI-wide public embarrassment) This is not an uncommon philosophy among professionals (of any trade) and currently a tactic concerning Warburton's recent improprieties as well as cokehead XXXXXX's problems. The problem then and now is whether anyone cares enough to get involved. ENDNOTE 7: There were communication problems between Watson and Warburton (a major cause splitting ASC into ASC and EEEC), Watson and Egami, Watson and Hoffer (the reason Hoffer split from ARL to form the Visibility Lab), Watson and the EPA/RTP (which was burdening my attempts to obtain development funds), Watson and Washoe County Environmental staff (again burden to cooperative studies and funding), Watson and Salt River Project management (to the point where Fred Rogers had to act as an intermediary), and Watson and other potential funding sources within DRI (most notably Dr. Sharkey). An EPA/LV QA Official warned me (and Broten) not to "turn your back on Watson." Even a Board of Regents member referred to Watson as a "snot-nosed brat!" which Watson openly bragged about. Rumors, from very credible sources, indicated that the current DRI President referred to Watson as a "maniac." The situation was intolerable, demoralizing and frustrating. There are additional examples in my 1985 Response. ENDNOTE 8: I wrote reports to Egami and Bowen; stating my findings, conclusions and recommendations for every audit, required or not, that I performed. With respect to their projects this amounted to at least four per year per project: two for my work and two to critique external performance audit reports. I never received a single reply. In fact only second source information assured me that Bowen read and used my reports while my verbal tests of Egami consistently indicated that he never read nor intended to ever read my reports. (fn14) Seven examples are: 1) never reading (much less responding to or acting on) a single QA report submitted to him (about a dozen in all) by me; 2) bogus work trips to Las Vegas in order to attend UNR/UNLV basketball games; 3) Las Vegas golf (work) trips (he secretly kept a set of golf clubs at one of his monitoring sites); 4) reversing my QA goals at his sites without consulting me; 5) disregarding my lab tests during the 27 March 1985 AMEX site installation, and performing nonsense tests on one analyzer (to impress a group of potential sponsors) while ignoring all other instruments: 6) calibrating some instruments by ear rather than using the appropriate test equipment; and 7) making multiple PI changes without consulting me. (fn15) Including: 1) the monthly altering and manufacturing of project data to suit the client; 2) falsification of a scientific modeling to benefit his client (in a legal battle) and to the detriment of Nevada workers; and 3) the fraudulent manipulation of project budgets to cover illegitimate uses (such as paying for other-than-project work, and funding the construction of his private company's (AMI) Audical. Nevada Supreme Court Page 15 In addition to reports I also authored memo's to both Egami and Bowen in order to make my technical work and reports more useful to the user, and make my field work scheduling more realistic. A couple of examples are included in my Response but several more exist and should be in my files. On each of the examples that you find observe that I routinely indicated the results at the bottom. You will find that responses from Bowen were normal (if only verbal) and no response was ever received from Egami (even after multiple requests). Examples of never receiving a response from Egami are: 1) my 23 February 1984 memo (see 1985 Response Attachment 8) requesting report suggestions; 2) my 26 June 1985 memo (Response Attachment 11) concerning the apparent development of an industrial audit capability 3) my January 1985 memo requesting current network information (to make my itinerary more realistic and also give me an idea of what extra material or equipment would be needed) including everything from new site-lock combinations to revised computer logging conversion coefflicients 4) my 17 July 1985 memo requesting comments on the initial DEP report (a project he demanded being part of and making input to); and 5) my March 1985 memo requesting that Egami write a telecon whenever he had conversations about QA work, in order to prevent the numerous contradictory statements I was experiencing during my conversations with current (DEP and EPA) and future sponsors (especially frustrated was Washoe County. There are examples in my files that show a willingness to go beyond my position's mandates by writing reports or sections of reports, and project equipment operation or test instructions that were the responsibilities of project management. As another instance, after hearing that Watson, Bowen and Egami were questioning some of my audit procedures, I wrote a several page note detailing the technical reasoning behind the procedures and an invitation to discuss them further. As usual only Bowen responded and then only to criticize me for not writing or presenting a paper on the procedures. I only declined and exclaimed that I would also not present a paper stating why 2+2=4: they wrongly assumed that since the procedures were either new to them or beyond their understanding that no one else new or understood them. In comparison, note that I never received a memo from Egami or Bowen as the initiators of communications concerning QA and their projects.(fn16) Poor communications within ARL was a major complaint noted in my 1984 Evaluation Response, 1985 Response, and memoranda and notes to Watson. Contrast these burdensome and demoralizing relationships (that I contend would have made Jesus bitter) with the very excellent rapport I had with EPA/RTP, EPA/Region IX, Nevada DEP, Washoe County, SPPC, IBM/Tucson, and Data System Services (DSS). I was even beginning to overcome the great animosity between Clark County and DRI caused by Hoffer's arrogance and inability to communicate. Of course, more examples are included in the 1985 Response. (fn16) Egami had even rejected QA work without consulting me or letting me know that RFP's had been received. The most notable example was Clark County, which he rejected, for political reasons; although I interacted well with them. Nevada Supreme Court Page 16 ENDNOTE 9: As the DRI employment announcement and my letter of application clearly show I was not hired to do QA work; I was hired to replace Paul Fransioli (non-QA staff) who was leaving. My first assignment (my first week), as a way of familiarizing me with the SCE Mohave Network, was to review the vacationing Hoffer's QA Section of the project's annual report "only for typo's," and fill in some blanks with data to be supplied by Tony Reale, an ARL professional. After reviewing the Section and not understanding it, and receiving computer printouts with only a handwritten site identification and no labels for the dozens of bits of information within, I went to Roger Steele, then head of ARL and my direct supervisor, for advice. His reply was: "Do what is necessary to make it right." It is also important to note here that the data period and report were for 1978 (ending seven months before my arrival). During the next several months I was forced to start from scratch and examine every shred of documentation I could dredge up on how measurement quality was assured in 1978. During this time Hoffer never offered a single bit of information, even when asked: because of poor site documentation I relied heavily on the memories of project staff and personal logs. Hoffer's attitude was defined in a staff meeting when he said "Getting the QA Section to the client was more important than the information it contained." Yet he refused to help and even tried to hinder the task. Then he would publicly chastise me (in the halls) and blame me for making the report late (although I first saw it in August) because I spent a great deal of time retrieving and deciphering trivial (but relevant) information that he should have organized, summarized and kept in files during 1978. The report, expanded from the original five pages to approximately 40 pages, was completed accepted, and formed the base for QA Sections to Annual Reports during the next six years. Furthermore, I (with the cooperation, patience and programming skills of Reale) revised and extended the original computer program to become a source for general quality control data. This was so successful that it formed the technical basis for mathematical data manipulation (providing better stability, precision and accuracy than constant instrument adjustment) for the next six years. A financial benefit was also realized by making weekly technician trips to the network for instrument adjustment (to within 5%) unnecessary: this translated to annual contract savings of approximately $30,000 per year. From this and other work Steele asked me to take over more, but (unfortunately) not all of the QA work for the SCE Project. Unfortunately, because I would soon fall into a trap that, through Hoffer's neglect, would embarrass me and DRI. The incident involved a sulfur dioxide analyzer that was sampling its own exhaust, per Hoffer's installation instructions. The technician didn't know any better nor would he contradict or question Hoffer, his boss. The embarrassment was shared by me personally because I was at the site when the ERT audit team discovered the problem FOR THE SECOND TIME (creating at least three months of bogus data). Hoffer, because of his arrogance and laziness, had filed (after ignoring or just not reading) the previous audit report. The auditors let me know in very trite and disturbed language that they didn't appreciate DRI's (Hoffer's) attitude and this time ERT would send a report directly to SCE and point out the (DRI and site) problems. At this point I took over every aspect of the SCE QA. Nevada Supreme Court Page 17 A frustrating tangential incident that occurred about the same time had to do with Hoffer's use of SCE project funds. Despite taking on more QA responsibilities I had very limited authority to expend funds; Hoffer's consent was usually necessary. I was modifying some test equipment and could not get funds from Hoffer to pay for machine shop personnel:. yet, he used SCE funds to have shop personnel build a log splitter from scratch. There were two ways to circumvent the problem of getting work done: 1) learn and use shop machines and tools at night and on weekends, and 2) use sick or annual leave (and still work) to free a day of project time for shop personnel to use. Despite my normal duties, and desire to spend what time I had on projects of more interest to me, SCE problems were an important current priority. However, my professional goals were plainly and often stated to Steele, Dave Miller (an interim ARL Director) and Watson. Steele reiterated them in my early evaluations but due to a shortage of projects at that time and his death they were never realized. Miller likewise listened (sympathetically and enthusiastically), but, because of his interim status he could only include my goals in an evaluation for the permanent director to read and act on. Watson never listened to (or heard?) my continual stating of goals and never gave them recognition in my future evaluations; causing the outburst in my 1984 Response. By this time all other duties were dropped to allow time to do QA work for all SCE and Nevada Power projects, SPPC and Carlin Gold. Accumulation of QA duties happened over a period of time and for the following reasons: 1) no one (including me) wanted to do QA work, 2) my expertise with instrumentation, good written and oral communication skills, enthusiasm to do a good job (to prove technical skills relevant to other more interesting projects), and my attention to detail; and 3) my willingness to help fill this vacuum at ARL/ASC/DRI. The deeper I as sinking toward a total QA role the more apprehensive I became: feelings I openly shared with my managers. Before long I was formally being referred to as the QA manager. I had no free time at work, no opportunities to join other projects of interest and was taking UNR classes geared more for QA work than my interests. Additionally, much (unpaid) overtime was necessary to accomplish fieldwork and keep the test equipment together. During most of my tenure at DRI the only opportunities to test my equipment was when a network analyzer came in for repair. There were often severe time constraints to minimize downtime.) Early and consistent recognition for my efforts and successes were not unnoticed by Steele (1980 Evaluation, "... continues to provide significant contributions pertaining to the solution of ongoing QA problems ...", and 1981 Evaluation: "...dedicated and capable researcher who has carried out difficult and tedious project assignments. He is striving to single-handedly advance our capabilities in QA..."), Miller (1982 Evaluation, "...commendable job in conducting QA audits...", "...become accomplished with minimal supervision and laboratory facilities.", and "...willing to undertake a variety of assignments on air monitoring projects and can be relied upon for professional performance."), or Watson (1983 Evaluation, "...responsive and helpful to all who deal with him.", "...does one of the best jobs on audits I've seen. He not only makes very precise performance measurements, he ascertains the reasons why a monitoring device is measuring improperly. Several sponsors have expressed their appreciation for this service.", and 2 March 1983 Memo to Kocmond, ASC Director: "...evident that the superhuman efforts of our QA and instrument maintenance staff...") Nevada Supreme Court Page 18 Keep in mind the following points: I was the QA staff except for the audits when Eric Broten was allowed to assist me, and there was no hint of adding to the staff; I had strong, positive acknowledgment of my performance, by supervisors and sponsors, despite a "dislike" (even then), for QA; and the 2 March 1983 Memo (cited above) also states that we would be "recovering those costs (of new equipment) from ongoing projects" (an indication, to my delight, that we would not make outside QA work an ARL funding goal). An appropriate question may be: that's all well and fine, but, whose to say your performance didn't decrease from "superhuman" to the monstrosity portrayed in the 1985 Evaluation. My response would have been that you should ask the long-term and new sponsors including; Bowen (second hand information), SPPC, Nevada DEP, Washoe County Health, EPA, IBM and DSS. Two of these stated their support in writing, one was included in my 1985 Response while the other was written and sent to Hidy after the Response was submitted (but was mysteriously never included in my personnel file). Two more offered to be professional references during my search for employment after DRI. ENDNOTE 10: Understand that the normal intelligence and effort levels for routine QA work can be found in piano teachers and shipping department staff (ERT's audit personnel). The general philosophy is that most any monkey can collect the (minimal) necessary information while the more technically competent staff back at the office interpret the data and write the report. My philosophy was that an auditor ought to be competent enough to collect all data necessary to determine the status of all onsite monitoring AND test equipment, and subsequently pinpoint as specifically as possible any problems found before leaving the site. In fact, to go one step further, most all of the projects I worked on required me (by conscience not statute) to help solve the problems. I found this necessary for a variety of reasons: 1) incompetent management such as Hoffer and Egami; 2) lack of technically competent site technicians (educating new and/or enthusiastic technicians was part of my audit philosophy); and 3) lack of necessary onsite test equipment or standards. Although politically improper for me to use my equipment and standards (and simply not required for me to use my knowledge) to correct problems, every site I left was at peak technical performance. Correction of problems at any time under the management of Hoffer or Egami (types) could not be guaranteed, while people like SPPC, Washoe County, Nevada DEP, EPA, IBM and DSS appreciated the extra effort - resulting in higher quality data right then. To develop and maintain this philosophy took many 80 (plus) hour weeks (much of it in the field not an office); be informed that nights, weekends and holidays were unpaid. However, the enthusiastic and appreciative responses from concerned technical and/or managerial personnel made it worthwhile. As my performance shows, the lack of enthusiasm, appreciation or response from Hoffer, Egami and to some extent Bowen did not diminish the quality of my work on their projects. Their attitudes only succeeded in making my work more difficult. I responded positively and professionally, even during the four month period following notification of dismissal; when I could have merely come to work and done nothing or worse sabotaged instruments and data. Nevada Supreme Court Page 19 My reputation for being technically competent, willing to share knowledge, capable of working necessary hours (at times more than 24 straight) under unpleasant conditions to satisfactorily accomplish a task, prompt in reporting results, enthusiastic (even though I "dislike" the work) and congeniality had spread to SPPC, Nevada DEP, EPA, IBM, DSS and to some extent Washoe County. Because of Clark County's animosity toward Hoffer, developing good relations was difficult, but, I didn't give up trying. Early in my career I became sensitive to the problems (technically and financially) caused by apathetic and/or unscrupulous management. I observed, at another company, how apathetic management created animosity in the technical staff (whose tedious work often took place under harsh and trying conditions. Realizing that their reports and therefore work were not closely checked (or used) the field technician's dry-labbed (falsified) their test results. An observant external audit team, caught the discrepancies and a six million dollar contract was lost. In another incident I uncovered dry labbed reports for environmental studies at the Nevada Test Site's Yucca Mountain Project. Because I was internal, management had the opportunity to cover prior improprieties. In a quintessential example of poetic justice, Egami's attitude was finally exposed when critical data was needed from a specific site. Because of neglect (starting with Egami and spreading to his site technicians) the analyzer was defective and inoperative. Despite routine weekly control checks, which were ignored, Egami and his staff never caught the problem. When the client and regulatory agency asked for the data and quality control tests, the data set was discovered to be bogus. The very loyal but negative relation between Egami and his site technician made this scenario possible and inevitable. Did this incident contribute to the loss of Nevada Power funding? This is a bitter-sweet story because of the tremendous amount of time I (and Broten) put into preventing such an event. Trips to Egami's network always involved many hours of routine site maintenance in addition to the QA work. Despite endless complaints to Egami (and Watson) about such deficiencies, their (paranoid) relation and a lack of cooperation from both Egami and his technician, nothing was done. Egami was a successful money maker and, therefore, part of the ruling class. Nevada Supreme Court Page 20 ENDNOTE 11: My responsibilities spanned every aspect: 1) develop a QA plan based on the specifications in the Code of Federal Regulations and three Volumes Of EPA guidelines; 2) keep procedures at or above the most current State and Federal regulations/guidelines; 3) write procedures; 4) obtain standards and equipment(fn17) and maintain current certifications; 5) create, alter and maintain audit equipment and standards as necessary; e) interact with County, State and Federal agencies (to exchange technical assistance(fn18)); 7) perform audits (including tests beyond regulatory requirements, climbing 340 ft. instrumented towers, troubleshooting, problem solving, and educating site technicians); 8) writing reports(fn19) (including data summaries, interpretation, description of any problems, and recommendations); and 9) initiate or do work necessary to accomplish the report's recommendations. Another useful question may be: why is there an appearance of being unwilling to give up some responsibilities (actually PI status) if I didn't like QA? The response is that I didn't want to jeopardize the excellent reputation I had worked so hard to gain (including the more than 500 hours per year of unpaid overtime). I rejected attempts at making Watson or Egami the QA Head fearing what they might do out of naivete and apathy or, in the case of Egami, lack of integrity. Egami, as head of QA, would be identical to an (unreformed) Noriega as Drug Czar. While Egami's bid was rejected due to his appalling attitude, Watson and I disagreed on both the technical philosophy(fn20) of QA and geographic extent of fund seeking. Watson wanted national and international recognition. To me this would require a larger less capable work force whose numbers would fluctuate with the number of current projects (in an unstable funding environment). I felt a small, stable, qualified QA staff (not headed by me) could do quality work within the State and region (bordering states). My style of QA was necessary (not by regulation but a desire for better data) on every project I had, and every client with the exception of Hoffer and Egami appreciated the time saving, data quality raising, problem solving efforts. (fn17) Of the $49,000 grant to equip the Standards Lab $13,000 was devoted to two absolutely required analyzers. I purchased them from a specific manufacturer at the (strong) recommendation of Watson. They failed our needs miserably (although operating within specifications), even after considerable modification, and we again had to rely on instruments in the lab for repair to do QA work. (fn18) An EPA audit team in Hawaii, using Egami staff built equipment (and experiencing anomalous results), didn't call Egami or his staff: they called me to help troubleshoot and solve their problems. I helped (unpaid) the Nevada DEP on Saturdays so my normal commitments and schedule wouldn't be interrupted. I ran down to the County laboratory, during my lunch hour, to help solve problems with their standards and equipment. (fn19) Probably the most difficult aspect of the reports was getting them typed in a reasonable time. The problem was not with the typing staff but peers who often bumped my work in favor of theirs. At times I would have to seek help outside ARL to assure a timely report to the client. (fn20) As illustrated in my 1984 Evaluation Response (comparison of audit tasks) and by Watson's statements to Broten that I was to tedious; although sponsor remarks and Watson's own observations of my finding other than performance deficiencies (e.g., procedural) or catching audit test problems with cross-checks, justified my caution. Remember that QA is the last word in accuracy and validity. Added caution is necessary because no one is checking your work. Similar caution should be used in reaching Supreme Court decisions. Nevada Supreme Court Page 21 Additionally, my methods of marketing our QA product was much different than Watson's. He was an arrogant, boisterous, extrovert and could shamelessly force himself on people. (I don't mean to imply this was wrong, just wrong for me). I was a shy introvert and sold my product (as well as myself) by demonstration and a hard built reputation. It was working. I may have differed with Watson but don't believe that I was wrong, and the events following my departure vindicated my philosophy. ENDNOTE 12: Let me first address the concept of "other employment opportunities." There are only three other possibilities in Nevada that have positions relating to the work I was "doing" ; Nevada DEP, Washoe County and Clark County. Although they were involved with the type of work I was "doing'' only DRI had the opportunities to do the science I "desired." I invested six (trying) years at DRI to prove myself technically competent; and although successful my only reward (due to incompetent management) was more QA work. Further, even if I wanted to take a similar position none were available. This effective1y precluded employment that would allow me to stay in my home(fn21) or even the State. Beyond Nevada there were very few organizations nationwide offering both the work I could do professionally (as a means of entrance) and the science I desired. It is very difficult to gain employment at such institutions without an advanced agree(fn22). Of the few places found, during my year-and-a-half search, only six had position openings. Of these the three most desirable (EPA, Los Alamos and National Park Service) required my last Evaluation. Needless to say I never reached the interview stage with any of them. The others sensed more than "some awkwardness" at my explanations to their probing questions. Every prospective employer wants to know, as a minimum: 1) How are your technical skills based on previous performance; 2) How are your communication skills; and 3) How do you get along with other staff? ENDNOTE 13: With adequate management at DRI my situation would have been settled in a manner amenable to all, or even prevented. DRI and many other places hire or promote workers to management positions. It is an unfortunate American principle that competent workers (e.g., Watson) are rewarded by promotion to management (a position at which they are usually incompetent - e.g., Watson). There is an often forgotten realization sweeping the world that people cannot (and need not) be intimidated into productivity. Is this yet another example of Nevada operating at or below most Third World Nations? Now that the USSR is finally embracing the world community and their ways it may be time to work on Nevada. (fn21) This note is in response to Zeh's stated (and the systems apparent) view of my house merely as an investment rather than a home. Additionally I added $11,000 in improvements (including a greenhouse) to suit my lifestyle. (fn22) However, given the chance by an open minded Steele I was able to prove my technical capabilities. To leave and find similar employment would be the start, then comes the lengthy task of proving capabilities. |