My response following counseling session of March 31, 1998

Issues:

James communicates in a non-professional , rude, manner.

Response - Rude is in the eye-of-the-beholder. I cannot alter false impressions, nor can I alter the timbre of my voice. I do not dance around a subject, I come right to the point. I highly object to the label of 'non-professional'. You cannot find anybody in this group that is a more professional data processor. Perhaps non-personable? As I have repeatedly shared with my managers and directors through medical documentation, one of the outfalls of dealing with Lyme disease, and most especially Lyme Encephalitis, is deterioration of interpersonal skills. I was under the impression that they were making an accommodation where this deterioration placed no person or project in jeopardy. It seems I was absolutely wrong in refusing my neurologists offer of disability. I wanted to remain working and clear up the long-standing messes that accrued under other's watches. As Bill Thurlow has constantly stated what he likes about me, when I fix something, it stays fixed. If I made other's feel bad about themselves while I took ownership (before it became fashionable) of crippled processes, I apologize, I was unaware.

This unacceptable behavior has been discussed with James before but, the behavior continues.

Response - I apologize if I seem rude, is surely isn't intended. I will not apologize for being extremely professional.

Facts:

March 1996: People skills were marked "Below Expectations" and discussed on performance annual review.

Response - My copies of the reviews are no longer in my files. However, I think the same mark was made on my March and June 1997 reviews also. It seems the only feed-back I get is during those timeframes.

July 1996: Unprofessional communication with Tom Regalodo. HR department involved because of seriousness of issue.

Response - I asked Bill Thurlow after the fact why we went to HR. He stated that it was because he didn't know what else to do, he wasn't getting through to me. This was in response to my comment that I felt he was chasing a non-issue, and he wasn't able to convince me otherwise. Since that time, Tom has stated that he harbors no ill-feelings, and has stated that he is glad that I handle production problems rather that others within our group. Our relationship is quite professional. Aquilla Hill and Brian Cable have made similar statements to me.

March 1998: James made an extremely derogatory comment to the team about Judy Kramer in a team meeting; Judy was present. James disagreed with Judy's perception of a process, so he responded with the belittling remark: you have already heard from the payroll expert!, rather than contributing his opinion to the discussion.

Response - In a discussion with Keenan Wright about this subject, he also relayed a comment that I wasn't a team player because I didn't sit at the table, or offer comments. There were three other people in that meeting that had no input either. My reply to Keenan was that it was through courtesy I didn't sit at the table because of coming down with a cold. Additionally, my part of the project has always been a volunteer add-on beyond the original scope of the project. John Cole is the prime member of the Weekly Payroll Polling project from our group, and supervises the contractor actually performing the work. He couldn't answer the question, asked me, I stated I didn't know, and deferred to the payroll expert. This is not belittling ! Judy was part of the original design process with Marc Spradlin, and knows more about the process than John or I put together. No sarcasm was intended. As I have stated, I cannot alter the timbre of my voice, and when coupled with cold symptoms, it does sound like the voice of doom.

March 1998 (same team meeting) James was rude to Carol Pfingston when asked to provide project information. Carol requested project status information. James refused to provide acceptable information. When pressed for an answer he chose to belittle Carol with the comment like: how simple do I have to make this!

Response - I probably should choose to answer this with 'that is not the truth. No such incident took place in that meeting' . I stated so to Keenan during the counseling session, but concede that he may have it mixed up with a situation that took place three to four weeks earlier. On that date Carol called a meeting about 15 minutes before the meeting time. I declined, as I was working on a production bank deposit problem. Carol then called from the meeting room (nobody else showed up) and asked if I was coming. I replied no, she than asked if John Cole knew enough to speak for me. I again replied no. She then came to my office and requested status. I replied that I was working on a production problem, but that the status had not changed since the last meeting. Her following questions made it clear that she had John Cole's responsibilities and mine confused. I attempted a verbal 'picture in the air' about John Cole's processing of the actual payroll files, and my processing of report summary files. The lack of comprehension on her face lead me to draw boxes on my white board. I said 'I'll try and keep this simple'.

1. I had to get back to the production problem before we missed the bank deposit (a fact that to this day Carol fails to comprehend).
2. Her previous lack of comprehension with a verbal explanation.

Team members in the meeting said James behavior was extreme and unacceptable for a professional.

Response - This charge has only appeared on the 'counseling sheet'. The previous discussion Keenan and I had about that meeting did not bring up this point. Nor has anybody present at that meeting commented about the fact in an adult, or otherwise, fashion to me. As previously stated, out of courtesy I was not sitting at the table, and kept my input to a minimum.

March 1998: Team member called James, at home, for support. James was so rude and uncooperative progress was impaired. Team member said he would not ask for help from James again.

Response - When Frank Scranton called (a Monday), I had been flat on my back since the previous Saturday. I was barely able to go from bed to bathroom. I missed work Monday and Tuesday completely, and was partially effective the remainder of the week. The call concerned a support problem:

1. Frank and John Cole had attended a sit-down session concerning the entire polling process before I went on my first holiday vacation in three years.
2. Frank, John Cole, and Keenan Wright were in possession of the documentation I produced to support the polling process. Although this company has been using the polling process for a number of years, no prior process support documentation existed.
3. Frank had successfully performed an IDENTICAL support call. Given my circumstances at the time, given the level of training and documentation provided, perhaps the statement 'would not ask for help from James again' comes from shame.

Impact:

Team members have stated they will not meet with James in one-on-one sessions; therefore, business productivity is impacted.

Response - This is a new one on me. No one has ever made this statement before, and I daily have one-on-one sessions with IS and user department people. I personally feel that one-on-one sessions are more productive than large-group, everybody at the table talk, sessions.

Team synergy and morale is greatly hindered.

Response - Right now MY morale is quite low. Who in the team? Randy Graves and Sharon Hughes don't seem to mind spending long Saturday's with me.

Lack of productive conversations and communication causes project timelines to be impacted.

Response - I agree. I feel that my conversations and communications are always productive. Perhaps I get more out of it than others do.

Expectations:

Professional, supportive communication with co-workers, supervisors, team leaders, or management.

Response - Admirable goals.

Consequences:

Based on the history of occurrences and since new job duties require more interaction with team members, it is critical that these issues are resolved. If these issues are not resolved, we will evaluate your continuing employment with MRG.

Response - I am hopeful that you are consistently evaluating my continued employment with MRG in a favorable light. As long as the known medical caveat of deteriorating interpersonal skills is taken into account, and 'expectations' concerning 'more interaction with team members' aren't artificially high, I don't believe a problem does, or will, exist.

This statement is to be attached to the signed counseling form, and be placed in my personnel file.