LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Selective Prosecution
By Priscilla C. Dickman
11/30/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To The Editor:
I appreciate Dean Pagani’s column, “Swatting At Ethical Flies” (Hartford Business Journal, Nov. 9). The issue here is whether the Office of State Ethics SHOULD use the statute to continue to investigate an employee, such as myself, who for 28 years had excellent evaluations and was never reprimanded for the actions I am accused of. The question must be: Why would the Office of State Ethics (OSE), two years after my retirement, decide to investigate me on this supposed violation of OSE statute?
In 2005, after an “anonymous complaint” was forwarded to my directors and supervisor, I was twice investigated with no disciplinary action found necessary. The reason: I did not violate a policy, statute or act in any manner in comparison to the other 4,000 University of Connecticut Health Center employees, except that I was found to have used my e-mail account on my break in the most limited of time and my cell phone less than two to 10 minutes per day in general on breaks and lunch.
State documents demonstrate that I utilized the state’s telephone for personal use minimally as compared with other state employees. The documents proved personal telephone usage by other state employees who were not disciplined was far greater compared with my usage. That information should have raised red flags, alerting officials that selective prosecution was taking place. A real investigation should have been undertaken for internal discipline against those individuals abusing the state’s e-mail system and telephones on behalf of taxpayers.
Yes, I am afraid I do see selective prosecution by many state agencies who participated and continue to participate in their investigation of me, particularly because during the initial OSE probable cause hearing, the state labor relations director clarified that no wrong-doing was found during a previous investigation prompted by an “anonymous tip.” This earlier investigation revealed that my usage of e-mails and state telephones was minimal compared with other state workers, which is the reason that no action was needed to be taken against me. [Dickmans’ 78 kilobytes of usage as a full-time employee vs. up to 1,461 kilobytes by part-time and full-time employees in the same department Dickman worked in. This evidence was provided by health center’s IT department.]
Notably, other state employees identified for excessively abusing state e-mail and telephone systems for personal purposes by the Connecticut Auditors of Public Accounts have not been disciplined. Notably, Feliciano Dias, my supervisor of 28 years, was the individual found to have violated state policies for personal use in excess of one hour per day, according to a January 2009 letter from the attorney general’s office. However, Dias was not required to make restitution nor disciplined, but rather was “counseled regarding his Internet usage.”
I do believe I am being selectively prosecuted and the citizens of the state need to contact their legislatures and ask why the Office of State Ethics spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this issue concerning a retired state employee? I contend one merely needs to look at my federal/civil suit against the state and it will be evident.
The citizens need to ask whether the state’s actions are in retaliation because I filed a Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities complaint on the Americans with Disabilities Act (2005) for failure to accommodate me by my employer, the University of Connecticut Health Center, which resulted in a finding in my favor in October 2006.
Note that after working 28 years and earning my state retirement pension, I retired, accepting a reduced state pension and giving back to the state — and taxpayers — 2,100 hours of earned sick leave, valued at $28,000.
I would hope the independent investigation of the whistle blower retaliation act finally moves the legislature to rewrite the much-needed Whistle Blower Retaliation Legislation.
In addition, lawmakers need to review the Office of State Ethics’ actions since June 2007. When public officials are misled, as they have been in my instance, the state must and should look into criminal actions or ethical actions taken against the individuals responsible. The citizens deserve to get their wasted tax dollars back for the actions engaged in here.
No comments:
Post a Comment