Saturday, November 18, 2006

Why DLSE Assistant Chief Greg Rupp really needs DLSE Regional Manager Susan Nakagama

An anonymous source tells me that the real reason why Greg Rupp keeps Susan Nakagama in play is because he needs a scapegoat; a dumping ground for any possible mistakes and blunders that occur during his watch. His dumping ground is his next in command, which is Susan Nakagama. It was explained to me that even "idiots in this administration serve a purpose."

Everytime something goes wrong, he can blame Susan. It's not like Rupp will step up and take responsibility for problems under his command. I'm sure that Susan's okay with it because she probably hasn't figured this out. If Rupp had a supersmart Regional Manager, then he'd be worried about covering his posterior. With the way it is now, Rupp's not worried about Susan outsmarting him, and he can continue to blame her for all of the problems under his watch. If I was Lupe, I would eventually grow tiresome of Rupp's excuses.

Greg Rupp probably can't do what he really wants because that might start her paperwork (think Roger Miller); besides, he doesn't want to move her anywhere. He had the perfect opportunity when they investigated the SL retaliation complaint, and he kept her. I'm confused: something happened to SL and everyone in the know told DLSE investigator Lee Pearson that it was retaliation.

Deputy Chief Lupe Almaraz starts looking into the retaliation complaint, and then the DLSE transfers SL out of Public Works and away from Julie Tarazon, Lauro Cons, and Susan Nakagama. So what happened to Julie Tarazon, Lauro Cons, and Susan Nakagama? The DLSE doesn't transfer anyone unless there's a valid reason, so what was the DLSE's valid reason for transferring SL? If the retaliation allegations were unfounded, then they would have kept SL in the same position, but they didn't. SL got transferred, and Julie Tarazon, Lauro Cons, and Susan Nakagama got away with it. Think about this: if Greg had done to Susan what Susan did to SL, then how fast do you think Susan would have filed?

A Fraud perpetrated upon the People of California, a Waste of state time, money, and resources, & an Abuse of authority. Flunking someone's probation just because you don't like them (or because they filed a valid workers compensation insurance claim) is wrong, and wrongdoers should be held accountable.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home