Personnel
papers
- Keep in
mind--These
papers were
written by a Director in the Salvation
Army. For that reason alone, they are difficult to
challenge. The Salvation Army refused to let an independent third party review the evidence.
- Despite the dates on the
notices, it was not until April 2007 that any "misconduct"
accusations
were made. The April accusation refers to
profanity,
and the incident on the Welcome
page. This incident
involves the funding deception which is described on
the Counseling
page.
- The
first paper below, dated March 21 has an obvious
discrepancy. Each of the others has more complex discrepancies. Feel free to ask blunt questions here. Some of the accusations are simple fabrications. Interviewing other staff members would prove that, but the Salvation Army will not allow that.
- A side note about requesting file documents.
Pay attention to typewritten dates vs handwritten dates. - First
probation extension (3-21-07) here (This was used in May to
cancel the benefits given here This paper could not have existed on 3/21/07)
- Second
probation extension (6-4-07) here
- First
warning (signed 4-4-07) here
Response is here
- Second
warning (signed
5-4-07) here
Response is here
- First
evaluation (5-4-07)
here
Response is here
- Second
evaluation (6-8-07)
here
Response is here
If
a person were to walk into Detox and do random drug tests on staff,
about 50% of the time at least 1 of the staff members would have
tested positive for cocaine or heroin.
(I don't use any illegal drugs whatsoever.)
If
an outsider audited the charting in Detox and Residential, they would
find abundant mistakes. Not one of them would be mine.
They would find plenty of criminal negligence, quite a bit from
supervisors, none from me.
If a person went over computer
use by staff, (very easy to do), they would find hundreds of hours a
week spent on all sorts of websites. They would even find some porn
downloaded by a client with the approval of a nurse. I only used my
computer for work.
The most serious accusation against
me, the confidentiality violation, did not happen, and the accuser (the
Residential Director) knew it. He did commit a very serious
confidentiality violation, but he is the one who decided whether his own violation
should be investigated. (Hint: he decided not to investigate his own
violation.)
|
