Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Governator cries he wants to trim waste, but what's up with his appointment of Carole Migden to Integrated Waste Management Board @ $132,000/yr?

The California Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) is a place for unemployable politicians. This Board is redundant, as most functions are duplicated by the California Environmental Protection Agency. It's important for the Governator to keep the IWMB so he can keep his favorites on the state payroll.
The Governator's former Director of Scheduling, Margo Reid Brown, got this free paycheck when the Governator appointed her to the IWMB three years ago. Presently, Margo Brown heads the IWMB!
The steroids, the groping-while-still-married: it's a pattern of breaking the rules. "Do as I say and not as I do."



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please don't forget the other morons that were hired, just to be on the Halifornia state payroll. i.e. Vickie Bradshaw, Robert Jones, John Rea . . . the list goes on, and on, and on. . .

12/29/2008 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please post Vanessa Holton DIRt Office sex stories.

12/31/2008 10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy New Year. Jim Culbeaux and his sister Christine Baker continue to rob the state of California taxpayers of millions. Who will stop these scum?

1/01/2009 6:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great CL they retaliate and fire you so they can hire some homo to replace you.

Dean Fryer / Angela Bradstreet is being a homo the only qualification for being hired at DIRt? I know thats how you two got your jobs!!!

1/04/2009 7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1/07/2009 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CL, updates on your 1-6-2009 termination settlement conference?

1/08/2009 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What no other comments? Are your "information providers" retiring??

1/10/2009 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone should check this Jim Culbeaux's bag and pockets, he steals computer equipment and office supplies for his home.

1/14/2009 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Post Vanessa Holton DIRt office sex stories please.

1/14/2009 8:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carole Migden is a lesbian. Angela Bradstreet is a lesbian. Dean Fryer, Rick Rice, Jose Millan are gay. Connect the dots.... Got to be gay to be hired in California State Government.... Governor Arnold soon to reveal he is gay....

Next time you go for an interview at DIRt make sure to stress you're gay, if you want the job....

1/15/2009 11:04 PM  
Anonymous You Must be a KISS ASS said...

To: Arthur Konrad

Tim Stahlheber, Research Manager I
From: Department of Industrial Relations

Subject: Workstations at the New State Building

I have given some thought to your request during our discussion (you, Ron Casey and myself) yesterday, for relocation to a cubical next to a window in the new State building. Though it is within management's rights to determine staff workstations and I have concerns regarding your reliability, I have decided to give you a widow spot. I consider this accommodation to your request a closed matter. In addition, as I have discussed with you on numerous occasions, I expect you to conduct State business and not personal matters during office hours. As I have also discussed with you, I expect you to comply with the prescribed break and lunch periods and expect you to sign in and out at the time you arrive and leave. Please make sure you comply with these directives.

cc: Maria Robbins, Deputy Chief
Ron Casey, Research Analyst II

1/17/2009 10:58 AM  
Anonymous You Must be a KISS ASS 2 said...

To: Konstantinos A. Dimoyannis, Research Analyst I Date: May 4, 1999

From: Tim Stahlheber, Research Manager I -- DLSR

Subject: Cubical Location

Kostas, this is an informal note to summarize our meeting of April 29, 1999, concerning your desire to be relocated to a window cubical. In this meeting, you indicated your desire to relocate to one of the Section's two vacant window cubicles. You provided a copy of a note from your doctor at Kasier, which indicated he believes that you may benefit from the natural lighting that such a move would provide.

As I indicated in the meeting, I am not insensitive to your request and I am willing do anything I can to make your work environment better, but the IRR Section has only five widow cubicles; three of which are currently occupied by Research Analyst IIs. The other two are for highest level researcher, the Research Program Specialists, the Division will hire in the very near future. Before we relocated to the new building it was determined that these cubicles would be left vacant specifically for the Specialists. Please note that there are also several Research Analysts Is with more seniority than you who would be entitled to these window spots before you could normally be considered for one.

The Specialists positions will be working on the Division's most complex and time sensitive issues. Therefore, it is imperative that these individuals be located in the prime cubicles. These locations have the least amount of foot traffic, lowest ambient noise level and provide the greatest level of privacy. These factors contribute to the productivity of these positions.

In addition, these classifications will also have some lead responsibilities over various aspects of the Section's programs. They will need to meet with other staff members to discuss issues relevant to these programs. These cubicles will allow the Specialists to meet with other staff and reduce the amount of disturbance to the remainder of the staff.

During this meeting I offered to contact your doctor to see if there was anything the Division could do to correct this problem. You indicated that you would prefer to contact your physician yourself to ascertain if there was any lighting the Division could purchase that would reduce or alleviate the problem. The Division is more the willing to purchase, within reason, any additional special lighting for your area.

cc: Arlynne Sangalang, Management Services Technician
Pat Fry, Personnel Analyst

1/17/2009 10:59 AM  
Anonymous REAL WORK AT DIRt said...

Q: You are advised of (for Reg. Mgrs.)/have (for PJs) a recently hired employee at a WCAB, John Smith, who has had two outbursts at work. These outbursts disrupted the workplace. Several employees have come to you (if PJ)/the PJ (if Reg. Mgr.) expressing concern for their safety as a result of Mr. Smith's behavior.

You have also heard from your secretary that Mr. Smith has been having a problem with a co-worker who has been making vulgar remarks and romantic overtures toward him. The co-worker has been employed at the WCAB for over 12 years. What steps could or would you take to deal with the situation?


(1) An employer has the responsibility to conduct a thorough and objective investigation of personnel situations like this. Decisions on what course of action to take should not be based on hearsay, rumor or uncorroborated evidence. So, the first thing that would have to be done is to investigate. An investigation plan would have to be developed. Presumably, personnel would assist with this effort. Investigation can consist of: interviewing the appropriate witnesses (co-workers, members of the public) to any of the events or individuals who could otherwise shed light on the situation (e.g. the employee's history in the workplace vis a vis mental stability); reviewing personnel files; reviewing work load and assignments, etc.

Robinson rights. An employee has the right to a union representative in two circumstances: (1) in an investigatory meeting which could reasonably lead to discipline; and (2) in a disciplinary meeting. So, if the interviews of any employees could reasonably lead to discipline, that employee may have a union representative present. Under the law, an employee must assert that right. However, as a matter of practice, this Department has advised employees in advance in writing of that right. This makes things go smoothly so that interviews do not have to be discontinued when the employee determines s/he wants a representative.

BONUS POINT: An employee has the right only to one representative and that representative may only assist and advise the employees, not "represent" him by being argumentative or put on a case.

When a complete and thorough investigation is completed, an analysis should be made of what issues are operating and action taken accordingly.

(2) The SUBSTANTIVE issues raised by this question are as follows:

(a) The outbursts.

(i) Discipline. An employee may not disrupt the workplace by outbursts. One who does may be disciplined. Progressive discipline must be followed. The scheme of progressive discipline provides for informal and formal stages. On the informal side are verbal and written counselings. On the formal side are formal reprimands, reductions in pay, suspensions, demotions and dismissals.

The degree of discipline to impose here will depend upon several factors. If these outbursts are deemed to be of a very serious nature, an employee may be summarily disciplined at a higher level (e.g. suspension). Outbursts with a significant impact on co-workers, especially if they forebode violence, would constitute serious offenses. An employer has the responsibility to maintain a safe and secure workplace. Accordingly, if the investigation shows that the outbursts were particularly heated or threatened violence, severe discipline (suspension, dismissal) should be imposed. If the investigation reveals that the outbursts were minor or "just letting off steam", while Mr. Smith should be counseled as to their inappropriateness, a written informal counseling would suffice.

One thing that would have to be looked at is whether the employee has been previously counseled. The question does indicate that he has had two outbursts. If he has been previously counseled, then the second outburst would merit more severe discipline in the progression.

Other factors obtained during the investigation could affect the degree of discipline imposed. E.g. the employee's tenure: in most offenses, an employee with long tenure and a clean or recently clean disciplinary history would mitigate against severe discipline. We know Mr. Smith has only been employed at the WCAB for a short time. Also, e.g. if the investigation shows that the outbursts occurred in a short period of time and were related to a temporary stress in his life (e.g. family illness or financial problems) and that in the interview with him, he acknowledged his wrongdoing and the PJ/Reg. Mgr. thinks he understands and will not repeat the behavior, then perhaps a lesser response would be made.

(ii) Mental Disorder.

Because repeated outbursts may indicate a mental condition for which discipline might not be proper, the employee can be sent out to an IME for a fitness for duty examination. If the doctor finds that Mr. Smith has a mental disability, the employer must consider its obligations under state (FEHA) and federal (ADA) law to reasonably accommodate the employee unless doing so would create an unreasonable hardship to the employer. Accommodation questions should be asked of the IME. If the IME determines that the employee needs time off to go to psychiatric sessions, or a different configuration of his office, or a transfer, or a different supervisor, the employer would have to consider whether those accommodations would be an undue hardship.

BONUS POINT: An entity as large as the state/Department/DWC will be held to a higher standard to accommodate employee needs.

At the same time, the employee can be required, as a condition of his continued employment, to attend and verify his attendance at psychiatric sessions or the taking of necessary medication.

(b) Sexual harassment.

Another issue this question flags is the possibility that Mr.Smith's female co-worker is sexually harassing him. The courts in recent years have made crystal clear that employers have a very serious responsibility to rid the workplace of sexual harassment. There are two kinds of sexual harassment: (1) quid pro quo, in which e.g. an employee is, as a condition of his employment, required to engage in unwanted sexual acts; (2) hostile environment, in which unwelcome comments, actions, etc. made by other employees makes a reasonable person feel uncomfortable at work. This sounds like it is more of the second type, although we would have to see what the investigation reveals: does the female co-worker have any power or authority over Mr. Smith? what is the exact nature of her behavior?

BONUS POINT: An employer is held strictly liable for sexual harassment of its supervisors.

Here, we are told that a female co-worker with high seniority may be making possibly sexual remarks and unwanted romantic overtures to Mr. Smith. If the investigation bears this out, and that Mr. Smith's outbursts are in response to her behavior, the employer must act quickly to remedy the situation.

It would be inadvisable to discipline Mr. Smith is he is a victim. However, the female co-worker must be disciplined. The degree of discipline again takes into consideration all the other factors of progressive discipline - tenure, prior disciplinary history, severity of the actions, incorrigibility. However, as a matter of policy the highest courts of our land have made clear that sexual harassment is to be taken seriously, such that formal discipline should always be considered. If the female co-worker's actions included physical touching, that would justify a severe level of discipline. If not, perhaps a formal reprimand would do.

1/17/2009 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have generally been assigned to two aspects of the work of the Office of the Director’s Legal Unit (“OD Legal”): workers’ compensation (UEF and SIF) and the drafting of the AB 1646 hearing officer regulations. You have been responsible for the Fresno WCAB caseload since April 1, after training with Chris Frick from the date of your appointment. I have observed some of your work and received reports in the workers’ compensation areas, where our skill, knowledge, work habits and learning ability are satisfactory for the time you have worked for OD Legal. The reports on the AB 1646 regulation drafting, which draws on your extensive litigation background but is
new to you substantively, are that your skills, knowledge, work habits and learning ability are outstanding. In the coming months, you will gain exposure to administrative rulemaking on the AB 1646 regulations as part of learning the full range of IRC III duties.

Of significant concern, however, are problems your co-workers reported to me and/or which I have observed in your attitude and interpersonal skills through April. Examples of this include: complaints by the clerical staff about the manner in which you have requested special formats for the production of your work that are different from the uniform formats used in OD Legal; making unnecessary, denigrating remarks about attorneys Claire Ervin Lee and Chris Frick; and, using poor judgment in planning to advise the Fresno WCAB in writing that you have not been trained in SIF matters as one basis for a request to be excused from the hearing in Flores. In addition, your use of inflammatory words and a sometimes flip attitude have come across as defensive and arrogant during a time when it would be better for you to be more open to learning the work of OD Legal from those who have practiced it for several years. None of these problems appears to have occurred in the AB 1646 rulemaking interactions.

The staff at OD Legal is a competent and collegial one that enjoys working together. It is very important to John Rea and myself that we preserve such a work environment. The problems I have enumerated herein concerning interpersonal skills can cause divisiveness and unpleasant working conditions. I understand that the transition from a sole practice to a larger legal unit may be a bit of an adjustment; however, it is imperative that you make that transition without causing a negative effect on the staff at OD Legal.

1/17/2009 11:07 AM  
Anonymous YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK said...

98 Putnam Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

Chase Automotive Finance
Attn.: Pay Off Department
P. O. Box 5214
New Hyde Park, New York 11042

RE: Confirmation # 287564
Loan Pay Off of Vanessa L. Holton

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to the pay off information I received today on your automated information system, enclosed please find a check in the amount of $ 2,223.01 in full payment of my outstanding car loan with Chase Automotive Finance. I look forward to receiving title to my car. Thank you.


Vanessa L. Holton

1/17/2009 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Friends,

Sometimes when the courts and the jury are slow and do not provide you jusice / and you lack the resources to fight Goliath.

It may become necessary to fight as a team or individually to survive. Its matter of survival and I'm sure you will not blink an eyelid and keep up the fight.

Even when DIRt Legal has hired a ton of new attorneys you will promise yourselves to wipe out the injustice, DIRt Legal and DIRt management.

--Good work

1/17/2009 7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1/17/2009 7:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Culbeaux and his sister Christine Baker should be in jail. Thieves.

1/20/2009 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is unbelievable. The California taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for supporting the following:

1) Vanessa Holton having sex with Lloyd Aubry during work hours in her office at DIRt.
2) Vanessa Holton gets promoted over more qualified attorneys at DIRt just because she slept with Lloyd Aubry.
3) Retaliation of employees for speaking out about the corruption and for not responding to sexual advances of the supervisors at DIRt.
4) All hiring and exams by DIRt are based on SEX. SEX SEX.

1/26/2009 9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Affirmative action have turned the working world upside down. Incompetence, nepotism, illegal favoritism, discrimination, etc. The brownies of the southern district are as a rule disabled. Remember those stupid Mexicans in your grade schools or didn't do well in college metric classes unless a bleeding heart liberal instructor biased the grading? They can't help themselves after a life time of entitlements or and ancestry of hiding from ICE. Solution? Suggestion: objective achievement based merit system and turn a blind eye toward free loaders; maybe they'll just go back to where they came from instead of creating baby after baby for us to support only to put up with their abuse when they've become adults. Stop the flow of money and within a generation they''l be gone.

2/08/2010 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a complaint to DIR / BOFE:

1. Wal-Mart at 732 Center Drive, San Marcos, California (San Diego County).

2. Suggest a team program with federal DOJ, ICE, and OSHA with state FEHA, DOJ, Consumer Affairs, and OSHA.

Adulterated foods and consumable merchandise are being put back on the shelves to be re-sold.

Illegal aliens may be on payroll.

Unsafe / unhealthy work conditions in storage and certain work areas.

Direct and reverse discrimination in certain categories of hire, assignment, fire, and pay based on race, national origin, color, age, gender, orientation.

A myriad of harsh, slave-like punitive treatment of personnel.

Instead of whining about your DIR situation, get aboard together and perform your duties.

3/09/2010 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brethren come in force to Wal-Mart at 732 Center Drive, CA for unfair / biz practices, labor / safety / IH&W, Title VII, FEHA, Bakke, PC, et al. An opportunity for DIR team build to erase a rank wrong in north county of San Diego. Bring DIR's "Bubba" and "Bubba-ette".

4/06/2010 11:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home