GAS, always looking for a way to help his corporate contributors, still wants meal & rest periods to go away
You gotta give GAS credit; he'll use any reason he can find to justify DLSE from not enforcing its own laws. By not enforcing meal & rest period laws, this only helps one class of people, the corporate ruling class. Click pic to enlarge, go to the Sacramento Bee for full coverage. GAS also wants to take away holidays, put workers on furlough, and tax stuff.Labels: GAS, Meal Periods, Rest Periods
posted by Author at
5:00 AM
45 Comments:
You can bet that the idea of taking away meal and rest periods was hatched by the bird-brained whore Vickie Bradshaw.
What a bunch of thieves Jim Culbeaux they will not stop to even sell his wife.
Hello -
I saw email Jim Culbeaux pass aroun about Vannesa Holton having sex in office.
Here is what email say. Vannesa Holton is telling Loyd Aubery she likes sex they had in office. She say she will keep dress that has his semen on as present.
I not lie. I can prove. Jim Culbeaux will know and Vannesa Holton will know if this is truth.
Good Vsnessa deserves it. For all the pain and suffering she has put innocent people through. I thank the one above for punishing Vanessa with cancer. And making her and Jim's kids retards. Thank you Dean for informing us of the cancer.
Jim Culbeaux hired consultants for CMS. They funneled money into Jim's relatives bank accounts and the State is left with a deficit and garbage to show for the money spent.
Its a culture of thieves such as Dean Fryer that have created the housing debacle. Dean has scammed his real estate customers inflated home-prices, you name it he's done it. Dean's butt needs to be fried like bacon.
Angela Bradstreet
JIM CULBEAUX CONTINUES TO ROB THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEN WILL THE SON-OF-A-BITCH BE THROWN IN JAIL? ALONG WITH HIS THIEVING SISTER CHRISTINE BAKER?
I love Vanessa Holton office sex emails anybody have it. Please post it.
From what we have seen in the emails Jim passed around a couple of years ago. Vanessa Holton has been doing a Monica Lewinski on Lloyd Aubry when he was Director and she was Assistant Chief Counsel. Lloyd Aubry then moved out used his influence with the Republican Party insiders to move that clown John Rea out of the way, so they could promote Vanessa Holton.
Vanessa Holton sets the example for what is expected of women at DIRt to get promoted. Happy sucking...
JIM CULBEAUX CONTINUES TO ROB THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEN WILL THE SON-OF-A-BITCH BE THROWN IN JAIL? ALONG WITH HIS THIEVING SISTER CHRISTINE BAKER?
Jim Culbeaux has failed so significantly and squandered millions on CMS that he is being rewarded with a whole gang of additional staff for EAMS see http://www.dir.ca.gov/dirjobs/dirjobs.htm
All this hiring while there are layoffs everywhere else. DIRt really must be having a surplus can the Governor Arnie justify cutting our holidays while he funds this moron.
Best joke is he's hiring all these people with DWC money when they will actually be working for the IT Unit. Nice way to reduce staff in other Departments so that Jim Culbeaux can promote his and the other IT managers families.
The grievance alleges that leave control restrictions that Ms. Dietz is on is “harassment or reprisals” against Ms. Dietz for being a certified union steward and for the CSEA lawsuit challenging the department’s application of sick leave rules. Both the lawsuit and Ms. Dietz certification as a union steward was approximately a year after Ms. Dietz was put on leave restriction. Ms. Dietz was put on leave control on October 9, 1996. Ms. Dietz became a party to the CSEA lawsuit on __________ and she became a union steward on _____________. Over the past 17 months since Ms. Dietz has been on sick leave control, she has been given repeated verbal and written consultations and opportunities to comply and has failed to do so. In addition, she has even been given memoranda after an AWOL dock on a specific date to remind her of the type of documentation needed for a sick leave absence to avoid AWOL dock in the future. For example, on June 4, 1997, Ms. Dietz was absent and was put on AWOL dock because the doctor’s note provided insufficient information. Ms. Dietz was reminded in a memorandum dated June 30, 1997, that “Verification from a physician or licensed practitioner must include sufficient information to determine that you were unable to perform the functions of your job during the period of your absence…..As you know the Division is not interested in a diagnosis or prognosis but rather that the doctor state you were unable to perform your office duties during each of your absences”. Unfortunately, Ms. Dietz has failed to comply with my repeated directives for physician verification during the past 17 months.
VH (415) 647-3570
You were hired as a Management Services Technician (MST) with the Division of Labor Statistics and Research (“DLSR”) on January 2, 1991. Your duties consist of answering requests for information, assisting in the preparation of prevailing wage determinations, compiling data from collective bargaining agreements and other sources, coding wage information, preparing and checking statistical tables, writing brief technical notes, and drafting text of reports and revising tables applying user-oriented programming techniques and collecting data by letter and telephone.
In your Performance Appraisal Summary dated December 20, 1994, you were marked between "Below Standard" and "Satisfactory" for performance factor "Work Habits." You were advised that your attendance was poor and needed improvement. The appraisal also noted that if your attendance did not improve, other steps might be taken to monitor your attendance.
On February 22, 1996, you were informed by written memorandum from your supervisor, Maria Robbins, Deputy Chief, DLSR, that, because of frequent tardiness, in the future you would be considered absent without approved leave (AWOL) and your pay would be docked.
On August 9, 1996, your supervisor, Ms. Robbins, verbally counseled you regarding your excessive absenteeism and tardiness problem. She warned you that if the abuse continued, you would be placed on leave control. She warned you again in an email message sent to you on September 12, 1996, that you needed to improve your attendance or you would be placed on leave control.
By written memorandum from your supervisor dated October 9, 1996, you were placed on an absence control restriction that required, among other things, that if you wished to claim sick leave you obtain written medical verification of your inability to perform your assigned duties for all absences due to illness. You were also advised that if you continued to be absent without authorization or substantiation from your doctor documenting your inability to perform your duties, formal adverse action could be taken against you.
Despite many warnings about your attendance problem, and a Notice of Adverse Action, your pattern of absence persists. You routinely exhaust all of your leave time as you accrue it. In addition to using your accrued leave time each month, you are also on dock. In a memorandum dated January 22, 1997, Ms. Robbins, instructed you that whenever you were out sick, you must call her, between 8:30 am. and 9:00 am., to report that you would not be coming in. She also suggested that you contact the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) on more than one occasion.
Since November 1997, you have been on notice that, should you continue to be absent excessively, continue to be absent without approved leave, (AWOL) or continue to fail to follow absence control instructions, further disciplinary action would be taken against you. This notice was given as an Adverse Action served on you on November 19, 1997, reducing your salary with the Division of Labor Statistics and Research for a period of six months.
DLSR allows their employees to participate in a Flextime program. This program includes a provision for employees to adjust their schedule to arrive at work anytime between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Employees are not required to report at the same time each day. Even though you have been given the privilege of this flexible starting time, you have continued to arrive late to work. Despite the fact that you have been given repeated warnings that you must abide by your assigned work hours, including arrival time, you were late on the following dates:
Dean Fryer scammed and robbed all his real-estate customers. Beware of Dean, he claims to be untouchable and above the law as he has legal protections for being homosexual.
Happy Thanksgiving haters
Vanessa Holton is the DIRt office-sex porn-star.
JIM CULBEAUX CONTINUES TO ROB THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND HE GETS PAID TO DO IT. WHEN WILL HE GO TO JAIL???
The homo Dean Fryer uses State Resource and his half-inch-dick + extension to screw Jim Culbeaux. Ooooooooowhhh!!! That hurt Dean....
Jim Culbeaux and his son Max are retards. Watch out the little retard Max will be working for DIRt soon!!!
Dean Fryer is da mudder fuker and he is phuking Jim Culbeaux in office.
Friends;
You know Jim Culbeaux and his sister Christine Baker own property in Mexico. They let politicians live there in exchange for favors and promotions.
The properties are otherwise rented out and the Culbeaux family has been evading paying IRS taxes for years.
All this while they collect over one-half million from taxpayers in salary.
And they cost the taxpayer over two billion on failed projects CMS, EAMS, WCIS, EDEX, IMIS.
Now they cost the taxpayer a permanent tab by hiring a whole bunch of staff to make it appear the failed projects have not failed.
Good show we will see how long Jim Culbeaux can keep bilking the taxpayer and who at DIRt is helping him on this mission.
FYI. Jim Culbeaux bring that retard Maxim Culbeaux to work and disturb us all.
Get used to it. Jim Culbeaux family son Max Culbeaux will be our CIO soon.
Christine Baker has always tried to lure unsuspecting politicians into her bind. Christine Baker starts out by donating small sums to politicians campaigns and then demands big favors for herself and her brother Jim Culbeaux.
THIS IS HOW DIRt "IT UNIT" CONTINUES TO ADMINISTER FRAUDULENT STATE EXAMS - SPB BEING ANOTHER DUMBSHIT AGENCY LIKE DIRt AND ITS MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS - STILL REAP THE REWARDS OF SUCH CRIMINALLY ORGANIZED SCAM FOR PERSONAL GAINS AND UNDESERVING RETIREMENT BENEFITS BEFORE THEY ROT IN HELL.
Witness #1 (Respondent) Comments regarding the Allegation: Witness #1 appeared for the investigative interview without a representative. He indicated that the current SSS II examination deviated from prior test administrations insofar as it was primarily Oracle-based. The witness stated that he is not sure why the test turned out to be focused so entirely on Oracle, indicating that he was simply told that they needed questions for each level of the classification in the exam series. He states that he worked with Personnel in developing the questions, indicating that initially Personnel wanted questions that built on one another, i.e., the SSS I candidates would have a certain number of questions and then the SSS II would have several additional questions, etc. He indicates, however, that he did not think it made sense to do it in that way, so he developed different questions for each examination. The witness stated that the SSS I exam was focused mainly on supporting NT servers and operating systems such as Active Directory and policies; and the questions for the SSS II dealt with things like Sql Server, Oracle and database administration. He indicated that the SSS III questions dealt with policies and management, i.e., budgets and the strategic plan. He indicated at the II level the questions were primarily Oracle on the basis that they are an Oracle shop. The witness indicated that he worked closely with Barbara Presley in Personnel, who guided him through the process in developing the questions. He indicated also that Witness #2 reviewed and approved the proposed questions prior to test administration. The witness stated that he has developed test questions previously, indicating that he always finds it very difficult.
The witness states that he did not promise either Witness #3 or Witness #7 that they would be promoted prior to the exam. He indicates, however, that he considers theni to be the best two staff that he has and that he certainly wanted to promote them when he could. He specifically recalled a situation where Witness #7 received an award for "saving" the workers' comp information system, which was totally dead and causing lots of bad press for the department.
He states that the workers comp folks just dumped it on the IT staff, and Witness #7 fixed it quickly and improved its performance from where it had been originally. The investigator expressed her view that it is not unusual or improper for managers to identify star performers and to hope to promote them when they are promotable. She indicated, however, that the perception in this case, is that management intended to promote Witness #3 and Witness #7 without consideration of any of the other qualified staff. The witness stated that he does consider Witness #3 and Witness #7 to be the star performers in his Unit, but if others had done well on the exam and were on the list, he would also have considered them for promotion. He stated that the Personnel Office representative makes sure that the exam process is very objective, expressing his opinion that their oversight is good. He states the panel followed Ms. Presley's lead with respect to giving credit to each answer as it was given, consistent with the scoring criteria. He indicates that the panel discussed each of the competitor's answers following each interview and assigned the points collectively. The witness indicated that he knew that some of the competitors who came in for the interview were Oracle programmers and, he was very surprised that they did not respond sufficiently to the test questions.
The witness indicated he did not recall a previous attempt to promote Witness #3 and/or Witness #7; and did not recall when the last SSS II exam was given.
The witness indicates that he was given the task of developing test questions for the SSS series exam and was swamped with BCPs and other projects. He states he knew he had to get the questions together, and that he knew he should be asking questions involving Oracle and database administration, but didn't know where to start. On that basis, he states he did approach Witness #3. He indicates that he could not recall his exact words but remembers that he attempted to be kind of vague about it, and asked Witness #3 if he could direct him to some sources for information on Oracle or database administration, i.e., indicating that he asked Witness #3 to point him in the direction where he could get some information regarding Oracle or data base design. He indicates that Witness #3 immediately connected his request to the upcoming exam and reacted as if the witness had slapped him in the face. He states that Witness #3 told him that he was uncomfortable talking about the questions because he was going to be taking the exam. The witness states he realized immediately that Witness #3 was correct and that he should not have approached Witness #3 to talk about the issue at all. The witness indicates that he knows not to ask a competitor for specific questions for an examination and that he would not do that. He indicated again that it had only been his intention to have Witness #3 direct him
to some "sources" for Oracle or data base administration information but that Witness #3 connected it immediately to the upcoming examination. The witness stated that he realizes now that he should not have talked to Witness #3 even about potential "sources" of Oracle or database administration information or anything that Witness #3 might have connected to the exam. He states that he did not talk to anyone else about sources of information for the examinations. The witness was asked if there was anyone else he could have gone to, i.e., his supervisor, to ask for assistance in developing the questions. He stated, "Probably not, Witness #3 is probably the only one I would have thought of because he is our database administration expert and I respect his knowledge a lot." He states he ultimately just went to the Internet and "googled" on Oracle and developed his questions based on what the Internet gave him. NOTE: At the close of the investigative interview, the investigator suggested that the witness contact her if he thought of any other information that might be helpful to the investigation and/or if there was any way that he might be able to better recall or reconstruct the exact language he had used when he discussed the need for information "sources" for the examination with Witness #3. On that basis, the
.
witness called the investigator on 11/30/06 indicating that he had been unable to recall the discussion more clearly, except that he thought he might have "rambled" a little bit, with respect to how highly he thought of Witness #3 and his long-standing interest in promoting him. He indicated, however, that he did not believe he expressed this interest as part of the request for the source information.
The witness was asked if he was aware of any reason that Witness #3 would jeopardize his promotional opportunities by reporting the discussion with Witness #1 regarding exam questions; particularly since he is one of the only two competitors who passed the SSS II exam and management has already communicated its intention to promote him. The witness indicated he could think of no reason for Witness #3 to say that the witness had asked him about potential questions for the exam, except, perhaps, out of loyalty to his friends who competed unsuccessfully in the examination. The witness indicates that Witness #3 is very likeable, and empathetic and is considered a "lead" to other staff. He states that in the past he has told Witness #3 that he is already functioning as a lead and that perhaps someday he could be a supervisor. He indicates, however, that Witness #3 said that he doesn't mind being a lead but really doesn't want to be supervisor because he considers his coworkers as his friends. Witness #1 again denied that he made any comment to Witness #3 about wanting to promote him prior to this exam, saying that in the past, however, he has periodically told Witness #3 that he should be promoted.
The witness was asked why he believed so many competitors were disqualified in the SSS II examination, with 16 competitors and only two successful candidates. The investigator indicated that this inordinately high DQ rate was probably feeding the fire with respect to the perception of many of the candidates that management only wanted to promote Witness #3 and Witness #7 and "rigged" the exam to ensure that other candidates were not successful. The witness indicated that he was not aware that so many competitors had been disqualified in the SSS II examination. He also expressed some confusion with respect to the direction from Personnel in the past, not to put anyone on the list that would not be promoted. Operating on that principle, he stated that it would seem that anyone without Oracle experience would not be competitive for promotions in the department's Oracle environment and should not be put on the list. The witness stated that if you examine to the broad classification, you might have a successful candidate with a Unix background, for example, that would be unsuited for any position in the department but could block the list for candidates with more appropriate backgrounds for departmental positions because of the Oracle environment.
i Witness #2 em-rrren-tsre-g-ardirig the Allegation: Witness #2 indicates that the questions for the oral exam for the SSS exam series were developed by Witness #1 and that he reviewed and approved them prior to test administration. He states that he had not heard the allegation that Witness #1 had approached Witness #3 with respect to what kind of questions the panel could ask to be sure that Witness #3 passed the exam. The witness states that he would be very surprised if Witness #1 had gone to Witness #3 seeking information regarding potential Oracle questions. The witness states he has a whole library of Oracle books in his office and might have helped Witness #1 develop the questions, but he was very busy with other projects. He indicates, however, that you also can't just go to the books to find Oracle questions because you have to know what your folks are working on to direct your questions at areas of Oracle experience that they would be familiar with. He indicated that he has heard "rumbles" regarding the exam, to the effect that the panel gave "preference" to Witness #3 and Witness #7. He indicates, however, that they did not give preference to anyone and that Witness #3 and Witness #7 are basically Oracle experts and consequently scored well, indicating that Witness #3 answered the questions very well and that Witness #7 answered slightly less well than Witness #3. The witness stated that a representative from the Personnel Office participated on the panel and took the lead in ensuring a fair process. He indicates that Personnel advised the panel not to deviate from the questions in any way, not even to
probe or prompt for a more complete response, as they have been allowed to do in the past. The witness stated that they assigned points for each question consistent with the scoring criteria, which was very definitive.
The witness confirmed that the current SSS II exam questions were primarily Oracle-based on the basis that the projects the department is working on or has coming on line, require staff with Oracle skills at the II level. The witness indicated that in previous SSS series exams, they had five or six areas of questioning, including networking, oracle, mainframe, systems analysis and IT general; with each area having four to five questions. He indicates that the candidates for the SSS I exam had to select two areas of questions to respond to, candidates for the SSS II exam had to select three areas of questions, and candidates for the SSS III exam had to select four areas of questions to respond to. The witness indicated that there were people with Oracle skills who took the current test, who should have known the answers to the Oracle questions, and he was surprised that they could not display their Oracle knowledge or respond with sufficient depth to the Oracle questions. He indicates that these candidates had the experience but did not respond adequately to achieve a satisfactory score based on the scoring criteria.
The witness indicates that because the class series concept is so broad, it is difficult to hit all of the areas where individuals might have some specialty; and then it is hard to appoint the specialist that you need for a particular position because they might not be in the reachable ranks. He indicated that there have been criticisms in the past that the exams were not technical enough, or too technical, so that it is difficult to develop an examination that everyone perceives as appropriate. He indicated that it is difficult to come up with enough questions for the exam and that you cannot use questions from previous exams because they've already been exposed and people have memorized them.
The witness confirmed that a couple of years ago he attempted to promote Witness #3 and Witness #7 but the list had expired. Witness #2 was asked if he had sent an e-mail to Witness #3 and Witness #7 expressing his intent to promote them by 12/1/06. He indicated he could not recall, but agreed to look through his e-mail and to forward it if he found an e-mail addressing that issue. He subsequently forwarded an e-mail to the investigator, dated September 19, 2006 (Attachment C).
Witness #3 Comments regarding the Allegation: Witness #3 stated that approximately one month before the SSS exam series, Witness #1 invited him to
lunch and when they were walking back from lunch, Witness #1 stated that he really wanted to promote the witness and Witness #7, adding that the only way he could justify promoting the witness would be if he passed the exam. The witness states that Witness #1 then asked him what kind of questions the panel could ask to make sure that he passed the exam. The witness states that he was startled and uncomfortable by the question, as it appeared to him that Witness #1 was attempting to rig the exam. He states that it took him a minute or two to recover and then he told Witness #1 that he should probably get some Oracle books and find some questions at random and not tell the witness or anyone else the answers that were expected, and then to ask the questions and grade them fairly. At that point, he indicates Witness #1 backed off.
The witness indicates he was personally disappointed in Witness #1, who he had always thought of pretty highly, but when Witness #1 approached him regarding potential exam questions; and then when the results of the exam came out exactly as Witness #1 had wanted, the witness could. not help but connect the dots, i.e., indicating that Witness #1 had said that he wanted to promote the witness and Witness #7 and they were the only two who passed the exam. The witness indicates that he does not recall the score that he achieved on the exam, but believes he did fairly well and that Witness #7 scored slightly lower.
The witness states it is his impression that from Witness #1's and from Witness #2's perspective, the SSS classifications should focus almost entirely on Oracle since the direction the department has been taking is away from mainframe programming and more towards Oracle. He believes that this preference by management for Oracle has worked to the disadvantage of the mainframe programmers who competed in the exam. The witness indicated his belief that focusing the examination on Oracle programming knowledge and experience is not justified on the basis that Witness #1 and Witness #2 have supported the nonOracle programming positions and approved assignments to those positions, so those staff are all doing what they were assigned to do and excluding them from consideration for promotion because they are not doing Oracle programming is not appropriate. The witness also stated that he had talked to some of the mainframe programmers and indicated that one, in particular, Witness #4, stated that he thought that he had responded to the Oracle questions appropriately based on his mainframe knowledge and experience because the concepts are the same and on that basis felt that he had answered the questions satisfactorily and was surprised when he was disqualified. The witness agreed that the concepts are sufficiently similar that the mainframe programmers probably could have answered some of the questions appropriately applying the general concepts to
the Oracle questions. He believes the fact that only he and Witness #7 passed the exam is further proof of inappropriate exam processes, on the basis that he knew that Witness #2 and Witness #1 only wanted to promote him and Witness #7.
The witness also indicated that approximately a month ago, Witness #2 wrote him an e-mail expressing his intent to promote him and Witness #7 in December. He states this was the second time that Witness #2 had announced his intention to promote him, indicating that Witness #2 had told him once before that they wanted to promote him from a previous list, but apparently the list had expired.
If SPB decides to throw out the exam, the witness expressed his hope that neither Witness #2 nor Witness #1 would be allowed to participate in the exam process in any way.
The witness indicated that he is a friend of Witness #8 and agreed with him that the exam process seemed to be extremely unfair. He indicates he also felt compelled to tell Witness #8 prior to the exam, about the conversation with Witness #1 relative to the exam questions. He indicates he also told several other coworkers, including Witness #6, Witness #4 and Witness #5. He stated that it just seemed the like right thing to do, indicating that ever since he has come to DIR, he has either witnessed first-hand how rigged the exams were, or heard about them, going as far back as far as twenty years. He felt that it was time that someone blew the whistle. He states that he knows Witness #8 and knew that he would be sufficiently upset by what the witness told him regarding the conversation with Witness #1, that it would impel him to protest. He also submitted a letter of support for Witness #6's appeal to SPB, disclosing the discussion with Witness #1 regarding potential exam questions (Attachment D).
The witness originally stated that he thought he had told these employees about the discussion with Witness #1 after the test administration, but subsequently contacted the investigator to correct himself, indicating that Witness #5 and Witness #4 reminded him that he had told them before the exam was given. He indicates he did not take the issue regarding Witness #1's attempt to compromise the exam to anyone in management or to Personnel at that time, because he had not given Witness #1 any proposed questions and thought that was the end of it.
Witness #4 Comments regarding the Allegation: Witness #4 indicates that he is not too sure that there is really a pattern of exam abuse, although he states that most of the staff in the Unit believe that management has already decided who will pass the exams and who will be promoted. He indicated that he does not
have a lot to complain about on a personal level, as he has been promoted through the ranks without apparent difficulty. In this instance, he indicated that he had competed unsuccessfully in the current SSS II and SSS III examinations. The witness stated that the reason he believed these exams may not have been on the "up and up", was that in the past, the exam format recognized that the competitors were basically programmers, with various areas of specialty. For example the witness states that his specialty is mainframe programming, including COBOL, JCL, etc., Witness #3 is an Oracle programmer, and other staff have other specialties, i.e., Filemaker and other software. He states that in the past, when Ted Sorich was manager of the Unit, the SSS II exam had five parts, i.e., administrative, analysis, Oracle questions, mainframe questions, networking questions, etc. and the candidates got to choose three out of the five areas which they felt were their strongest, and that they would be rated on. The witness states that he knows his job and generally scored very high when the exams were administered in that fashion.
In this exam series, the witness states that he does not know first-hand, but understands that the SSS I exam was focused solely on networking, which is a departure from previous exam formats. He also indicated that the SSS II exam was totally Oracle-based. He indicates that the exam was narrowed further within the Oracle environment, focusing on Oracle database administration rather than Oracle programming. This narrowed the scope of the exam to just a few people who would have had the unique experience to be able to respond to the questions appropriately, i.e., eliminating even Oracle programmers, who would likely not have that experience. As an example of the narrow questions, the witness cited a question that asked competitors to cite the 15 steps associated with the Oracle tuning process. The witness states that unless you've ever done it, there is no way you could respond effectively to that question, and he felt it was far too specific for the broad classification. The witness stated that the SSS III examination didn't have any questions regarding programming, focusing entirely on administrative issues, i.e., BCPs. He states that he understands that at the III level, those are parts of the job that you need to understand but you still need to provide high-level technical direction to staff on complex software systems and systems software projects. He expressed his belief that if management perceives the job as solely administrative, they probably should have tested for a different classification.
The witness indicates that there are a number of programmers who didn't even bother to file for the exam, knowing that they were not on management's
"golden list" and would not be promoted even if they were successful in the examinations.
The witness stated that Witness #3 told him prior to the exam, that Witness #1 had asked him out to lunch about a month before the examination; and that Witness #3 likes Witness #1 and agreed to go. He states that Witness #3 told him that Witness #1 told him that he wanted to promote him (Witness #3) and Witness #7, another Oracle programmer, and wanted to know what questions he should ask on the exam to help him do that. The witness indicates that Witness #3 is a very strict and moral person; not necessarily religious, but very black and white about what is right. He states that Witness #3 told him that he didn't feel right about it and that he told Witness #1 that he couldn't tell him that, suggesting that Witness #1 get an Oracle book and pick out some questions. The witness states that he understood that was the end of the conversation on this issue between Witness #3 and Witness #1.
The witness indicates that Witness #3 told him about this conversation a couple of days before the exam because Witness #3 felt really guilty about the whole situation and the thought had crossed his mind to withdraw from the examination. The witness states he did not think that Witness #3 should withdraw from the examination, and felt that even if Witness #1 had done what Witness #3 said, he still thought the exam would ultimately be fair and that he would be successful. The witness states that even when he walked out of the exam interview, he knew that he had not answered every question completely, but felt confident that he had done well enough to at least pass, so he was shocked when he received the notice that he had been disqualified. The witness stated that he has passed the SSS II exam twice in the past, scoring in the first and second ranks, so he was particularly distressed not to even make the list in the current exam process.
The witness indicated that the previous manager, Ted Sorich, retired and Witness #2 was appointed in his place. He states that even when Mr. Sorich was the manager, staff had the feeling that they knew who he wanted to promote but they did not think that the exams were unfair.
Witness #5 Comments regarding the Allegation: Witness #5 is an Associate Programmer Analyst. She competed unsuccessfully in the current SSS I examination. She indicates that she believes the exam was extremely narrow, i.e., focusing on networking and security; while previous exams for this classification allowed the competitors to choose two subject areas out of four or
five, to respond to the questions. She indicates also that Witness #3 told her prior to the examination that Witness #1 had asked him what kind of questions the panel could ask to ensure that Witness #3 was successful in the exam process. The witness indicates that she believes management decides in advance whom they want to promote and there is not much chance for other staff in the unit to move forward.
Witness #6 Comments regarding the Allegation: Witness #6 is a Software Systems Specialist I. He competed unsuccessfully in the SSS II examination. He indicates that in the past, the SSS II examination was not as narrow as it was in the current test administration, providing five or six areas of examination that allowed the candidates to select two or three topics in which to respond to the questions. The witness indicated that his specialty is web development and databases, so that the exam focus on Oracle database administration unfairly disadvantaged him and many of the other competitors. The witness indicated that he passed the SSS II examination given in 2000, placing in the 2nd rank. The witness stated that he was upset and discussed the SSS exam process with Witness #3 after the exams were completed. He indicates that Witness #3 told him then that Witness #1 had approached him prior to the exam, requesting information regarding what kind of questions the panel should ask to ensure that Witness #3 passed the exam. The witness believes the department has committed fraud, discrimination and retaliation in the hiring and promoting of individuals within the department.
Witness #7 Comments regarding the Allegation: Witness #7 indicated that she had not heard anything about the conversation between Witness #1 and Witness #3 until Witness #3 told her, after the exam appeals had been filed, and after this investigation was initiated. She indicated further that Witness #1 had never approached her in any way relative to potential questions for the SSS II examination.
Witness #8 Comments regarding the Allegation: Witness #8 states that staff in the unit were aware that management wanted to "reward" Witness #3 and Witness #7 in 2005 and tried to promote them from a previous list but were not able to do so. He states that after the current exam was over, he was discussing his dissatisfaction with the exam process and Witness #3 agreed that it did not seem to be fair. He states that Witness #3 also told him that Witness #1 had asked Witness #3, about a month before the exam was given, what kind of questions the panel could ask to be sure that Witness #3 ranked number 1. He states that Witness #1 is in charge of the network group and there have been
irregularities with respect to hiring and promotions in that unit. The witness states that he knows that Personnel accepted applications late for the SSS exams, since he hand carried his to the Personnel Office, four days after the final filing date, on January 31s' and they accepted it. He indicated that he knows of one other person who submitted his application late and that Personnel accepted it. The witness indicated, however, that he did not want to identify the other candidate. The witness also suggested that the investigator talk to another staff member, Mr. M.A., regarding other irregularities with respect to hiring and promotional practices in the unit.
The witness subsequently mailed additional information to the investigator, by letter dated November 21, 1006 (Attachment E).
NOTE: This investigation focused on allegations regarding the current SSS examinations, separating these from alleged irregularities regarding hiring and appointment practices. On that basis, the investigator did not contact Mr. M.A. as part of this investigative process.
Credibility and Factual Conclusions
The evidence supports these allegations, including (1) the letter of support of Witness #6's exam appeal, from Witness #3; and his testimony, regarding the discussion with Witness #1 approximately a month before the exam was given, when Witness #1 asked him what type of questions he could ask to be sure that Witness #3 passed the examination. It is not reasonable to believe that Witness #3 is not truthful on this issue. He is one of only two competitors who passed the examination and Witness #2 has already announced his intention to promote this witness to the SSS II level, effective December 1, 2006. (2) Witness #1's admission that he "approached" Witness #3, seeking "sources of information relative to Oracle and database administration". While Witness #1 believes he was vague in asking the witness for this information, he does not recall exactly what he said to the witness and acknowledges that the witness immediately connected the request to the upcoming exam process and was
offended by the request for information. It is not reasonable to assume that Witness #1 was unaware that the witness would be a competitor in the SSS II examination, as he had expressed his interest in promoting the witness on numerous occasions in the past. It is not reasonable to assume that Witness #1 did not know that he should not discuss exam issues with potential competitors or others not directly responsible for the test development. Witness #1 had developed exam questions in the past and signed the confidentiality statement required of all exam panelists for the current test administration. (3) The consistent testimony of four other competitors and coworkers relative to Witness #3's statements to them regarding Witness #1's solicitation of potential areas of questioning for the SSS II examination to ensure Witness #3's success in the exam process.
They should rename this blog "The I.T. Rag"
WHAT DO VANESSA HOLTON AND MONICA LEWENSKI HAVE IN COMMON?
You dead brains still got your government jobs?
Yesterday, I was a victim of a mass reduction in force after 8 years with my company. I was not the only one, there were many 25 year employees who are now jobless as well. I am not bitter toward the company, but saddened.
My spouse has been out of work for a year- overqualified, much like the man standing on the streets of NY handing out resumes. We were struggling but making it- now we have no income and no insurance, a mortgage and 4 kids. We are not over extended - no real debts but the normal house and car payment, until we had to start using credit cards to pay bills.
If you look at us from the outside- we look fine, we have a home, we have transportation- what no one can see is that we are about a month away from having to walk away from our home that we worked hard to obtain and to keep. Allow vehicles to possibly be reposessed because now how are we going to make the payments??
Much like the rest of the people now burdened with how they are going to keep their homes and feed their kids. See there is no "bailout" for the average american - those of us who have worked hard, lived within our means and now are a victim of this economic crisis.
I know. Both Vanessa Holton and Monica Lewinski sucked cock to advance in their careers and rise up the ladder. Right?
To the poster 12/06 11:32AM. The reason we are in this predicament with people out of work is that none of the public has ever questioned how the State of California DIRt could be hiring while everyone else is trimming. The last time I checked the Governor said we were in billions of dollars in deficit. Yet look at the link posted 11/19 11:14PM there are several openings at DIRt for projects that have dumped millions down the toilet. This is no different from the Goverment at the Federal level dumping billions into a useless war. If you don't call your representatives and demand accountability of DIRt then don't complain.
JIM CULBEAUX and his sister CHRISTINE BAKER continue to rob the State of California of millions of dollars. JAIL TIME FOR THE TWO IS APPROPRIATE!!!
Jim Culbeaux held exams for the Systems Software Specialist series I, II and III. Prior to the exams Jim Culbeaux and his accomplice Dan Nishijima asked certain individuals what questions they could answer so as to ask those same questions at the exams. As predicted only the individuals with advance knowledge of the questions made it to the lists. One such individual named Jeff Seeman was insulted by the offer and the outcome and thought is was unfair to the other individuals taking the exams and came forward and turned Jim Culbeaux and Dan Nishijima in. The exams were abolished and had to be held again by the SPB. However nothing has been done to the perpetrators of this crime namely Jim Culbeaux and Dan Nishijima. Does this sound unique at DIRt or has this happened many times before?
Jim Culbeaux was hired at DIR as a student assistant by his sister Christine Baker. Christine was head of the IT Department that at the time, was small and was part of the Division of Labor Statistics and Research (DLSR). Jim Culbeaux majored in Forestery and has absolutely no knowledge in the computer industry. Christine Baker has ties to corrupt senators and politicians and has used this influence to push for Jim Culbeaux's promotions over the years. Jim Culbeaux was promoted to Data Processing Manager IV (DPM IV) when other Departments with much bigger and larger operations such as CalTrans did not have their Chief Information Officers above the DPM III level. There is not one successfull project that Jim Culbeaux can take credit for.
Christine Baker has always tried to lure unsuspecting politicians into her bind. Christine Baker starts out by donating small sums to politicians campaigns and then demands big favors for herself and her brother Jim Culbeaux.
Jim Culbeaux has been mowing John Rea's lawn at Berkeley for years. The man Jim has no morals he's been getting his arse torn by Rea for years and now Rea's thrown him at Dean Fryer. But Dean with only a half-inch dick has to use the mighty extension. Both Dean Fryer and Jim Culbeaux walk funny after the ordeal.
If someone were to impregnate Angela Bradstreet, she might come down off of her pedestal and show a little compassion for her employees and the people they serve. She might even like it. Probably not! I am not volunteering for the job.
Where's my little genius. Dog house with Dog available for euthanasia. Oakland State Building, 15th Floor.
Read you braindead wasteful government mmployees...
My English no good, but I speak great Tagala, I have many friends and families at dirt, I am mechanic and no government employee, know lots fun there, no show, no work, lots of pay. Paul Puno and Manny Ortiz are in charge of my families and lots of corruptions at dirt, but we strong tagalans know how to rob the state from the outside from my shop.
"The state has encouraged bad government practices. Corruption may run more rampant in some states but go undetected. Because of the nature of the charges against you, no matter whom you were to select, that individual would be under a cloud of suspicion. That would not serve our state, our nation, or the United States Senate,Part of the reason that I got into politics, ran for the state Senate, ran for the United States Senate and ultimately ran for the presidency is because we have to reclaim a tradition of public service that is about people and their lives and their hopes and their dreams. And it isn't about what's in it for me," "So let me be absolutely clear: I do not think that the governor at this point can effectively serve the people of Illinois."
We do not think that Jim Screwball (Culbeaux) can effectively serve DIR IT Unit. State Government Crminals at their best.
Fuck Jim Culbeaux he is a THIEF. Jim Culbeaux's sister brought this piece of trash to work for DIRt. Jim would never get a job anywhere else with that Forestry degree. Yet he lands a job heading an IT shop when he knows nothing about computers. Watch that fuck up Jim he will try to bring his whole family in. Jim has already conspired with the Philipino gang to bring their families in and create such a culture and environment so that no one will be surprised when Jim brings that retard son of his Max to work here for DIRt. Manny Ortiz, Tess Gormley, Sally Ortiz - two sisters and a brother all worked for the IT Unit Manny Ortiz and Tess Gormley are managers at IT and they boost procurement clerk sister Sally Ortiz to some lavish Assoc Info systems Analyst position. Some IT people complained so they moved Tess to office of Director. Playing musical chairs with taxpayer money, while Governor is complaining we are running in debt.
Fuck Arnold Schwarzenegger too, if he really cared about California debt he would not allow this to happen.
Please post Vanessa Holton DIRt office sex stories. I want to mastrubate tonight.
Jim Culbeaux continues to rob the state of California.
"Please post Vanessa Holton DIRt office sex stories. I want to mastrubate tonight."
Call Vanessa Holton, her home sex call number is (415) 647-3570.
I could tell by seeing Jim Culbeaux's duck-walk that Dean Fryer had been busy using the extension to his half-inch dick on Jim Culbeaux. Keep up the good work Dean, maybe someday when San Francisco allows Gay marriages again, you and Jim can tie the knot.
Wrong! ZZZZZZZ is not Jim whoever. You should get help, obsessive mental problems. Your rantings have ruined this site.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home