Conference 7.286::digital

    I like the idea.  Is there a way that we can get more info from the
    military on how they successfully worked the program?  This program
    would overcome the obstacle of fear of retribution for the most part.
    How did the military enforce this concept?  And, how did the military
    assure that waste, fraud and abuse would be objectively dealt with?
    
    I mention the latter because when the press gets wind of waste, fraud
    and abuse everyone gets to see it and react.  Similarly, when problems
    with the DCU were made public it was amazing how fast things got turned
    around.  Thus far, the tendency at Digital seems to be towards
    maintaining privacy and order when it comes to such issues.  This makes
    it difficult to get problems out in the open and for anyone to be
    empowered and motivated to deal with specific problems.  That may be 
    as big a hurdle as that of getting folks to speak up.
    
    Surely the military has come across the same type of problem.  How did
    they overcome it?  Thanks!
    
    Steve

>         was outside the normal chain of command that the individual was
>         reporting from, politics was removed from the equation. Just the

    I see this as a pair of key clauses. Human nature is often to maintain
    the status quo. To effect real change often takes external action. I
    see a small group reporting to someone *very* high up as essential to
    the process. Sure you can sometimes effect change by pointing out 
    something that someone was just too close to see but that's not the
    case that a new process is needed for.

    I also see removing politics from the process as important. If someone
    blows a whistle in good faith they should not be punished for it.
    Especially if they're in the right. And that does sometimes happen
    even in the best of places. Probably it would be best to keep the 
    whistle blowers name private during the investigation. Once it's
    concluded there are two possibilities. In one case no problem is 
    found. In this case the whistle blower receives a good explanation
    of why what they reported is not really a problem. Hopefully that's
    the end of it.

    In the second case there is a problem. The problem is cleaned up and 
    the whistle blower gets a genuinely meant thanks, protection from
    retribution, and the story gets out that someone did something good
    and was appreciated for it. I believe that people have to *know* that
    good is rewarded and bad punished for a system like this to work.

    		Alfred

Seems to me that waste, fraud and abuse are rampant in the military, and that
they aren't being dealt with any more effectively there than in Digital. In
fact, I believe that Digital is in trouble is that it's too much like the
military.

A nice coincidence. In note 2485 I suggested a "DEC Drop a Dime" program.

    Re; .3 - not at all. Please read on.
    
Having spent 25 years in the Naval Reserve (and still serving), I am familiar 
with how the Navy runs its WF&A system. There are several levels.

At the command level is the key person, the Command Master Chief, who reports 
    to the CO. (In the Navy, Master Chief Petty Officer/E-9 is as high as 
    an enlisted person can go. Very, very few make it to master chief. Each 
    command -- a command being a ship, a squadron, an air wing, a personnel 
    command, etc . -- has a command master chief. If there are no E-9s in 
    that command, a senior E-8 or even an E-7 will be the CMC). The CMC, 
    with a direct line to the commanding officer, keeps tabs on everything 
    that may affect the functioning of the command. It is important to know 
    that the CMC has carte blanche to operate _outside_ the formal chain of 
    command. Normally, an E-9 would report to an ensign or JG as part of a 
    command branch or division. But the CMC reports directly to the top. In 
    this capacity he is beyond being effected by anyone else in the command 
    except the CO, which gives the CMC the freedom to be a 
_truly impartial judge_ of what is going on. The CMC has been a major success 
since being implemented about 20 years ago. Part of his/her job is to monitor 
WF&A, and if he sees it, he can go directly to the CO, or he can approach the 
applicable division officer or department head first to see of it can be 
corrected at that level.

Beyond the command level, the Navy has a WF&A hotline 800 number. _Anyone_ in 
the U.S. Navy can call with information regarding WF&A. Most calls are of a 
minor nature, but some are surprisingly important. The Navy then assigns 
someone in the Naval Investigative Service or the Defense Intelligence Agency 
to track-down the particulars of the report.

This system has worked very well. I have been involved in several 
investigations at the command/squadron level. In fact, it is my observation 
that, on its best day, most private-sector companies do not even approach 
the level of accountability seen in the Navy. This is a large part of my 
frustration with what is happening in DEC. The outrageous behavior of some 
people at DEC would not be tolerated for a week in the Navy. I know. After 
25 years I've seen what happens to bullies or incompetents in the Navy. They 
get jettisoned, and fast. The Navy can't afford such people; it is the 
archtypical team-oriented activity.

During an annual active duty for training period I did with the Reserves,
a shop petty officer was accused of harrassing a junior female petty officer.
The CMC became involved. An investigation was conducted. The person 
accused was found to have violated the Navy's strict guidelines on harrassment.
He was subsequently reduced in rank, fined, and assigned to a less important 
position. Oh, that DEC would operate this way, instead of dragging its feet 
for literally years while far more egregious situations here get buried by 
successive levels of CYA, non-accountable "managers." 

I think a DEC WF&A hotline is a great idea and I would be glad to help 
establish one. I have the experience.

Your ball, DEC ...



                        

    I don't see how this would work any better than the current system.
    To make either system work, you need, as mentioned earlier, a person in
    a position who is outside of the normal chain of command and protection
    from retribution for the person escalating the problem.
    
    From what I understand, the current system meets the first condition. 
    The person in charge of the Office of Ethics reports to BP.  We seem to
    fail in the second condition.  Combining that with the Office of Ethics
    possibly delegating too much authority to the wrong people, causes the
    system to fail.
    
    I don't see how changing to the system described in .0 will solve the
    above problems.
    
    Bob

                     <<< Note 2488.4 by SOFBAS::SHERMAN >>>
                              -< excellent idea >-

>A nice coincidence. In note 2485 I suggested a "DEC Drop a Dime" program.

What makes you think it's a coincidence?? ;*)



re .5
 So if it won't work in the office of ethics, where could it work?

re: .6

This may seem somewhat redundant or obvious, but the answer to your question
is...Somewhere where the 2 conditions are met and the investigative staff
reports to the the head investigator, not somewhere in the normal chain of
command.

Bob

re .4

	And what if it is the *CMC* who is the problem?

				Tom_K

    
    
    If the dime was dropped on someone instead of a process,  what recourse 
    would a dime dropee have on a dime dropper?  I know it would never happen 
    around here, but I've heard tell of folks who drop dimes out of spite or 
    dislike.  
    
    
    
    Mike  

    <<< Note 2488.9 by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER "Being a Daddy=The best job" >>>

    
    
>    If the dime was dropped on someone instead of a process,  what recourse 
>    would a dime dropee have on a dime dropper?  I know it would never happen 
>    around here, but I've heard tell of folks who drop dimes out of spite or 
>    dislike.  
    
    
    
>    Mike  

You are hereby anointed to come up with a solution!!  How would you make 
sure the process was fair??

    
    
    I have not had oil applied to myself ner have I been divinely elected.
    
    If a person is going to accuse someone, they ought to be able to do it
    face to face and non of this behind the back garbage.  Confront one's
    accuser and all that.  
    
    
    Mike

    Presumably, if it could be shown that a charge was blatantly false,
    that would reflect *extremely* poorly on the person who made the
    charge...like maybe grounds for firing?  
    
    I fully agree that there would need to be a person "at the top" with
    real authority to *do* things.  In that vein, I'm reminded of a story
    I heard some years ago about Ken.  I don't know if it's true or not,
    but I wouldn't be surprised.  It seems that a supervisor was making
    racially disparaging statements to one of the production ladies out
    in Springfield.  After complaining locally with little success, she
    wrote to Ken.  He went to Springfield, verified the story, and fired
    the offending supervisor personally.  End of problem.
    
    In the old days, when things weren't fair there was always Ken, either 
    in person or in his overhanging shadow.  Not that all problems got 
    resolved fairly; there will always be some no matter what is done.  
    But there was the feeling that Ken cared about the average worker.  
    "Something" needs to replace Ken as the worker's advocate.  I assume 
    that ought to be the job of the Office of Ethics, or personnel.  
    
    If nobody internally is willing to be the worker's advocate, there 
    are any number of outsiders willing to take on the job.  They're 
    called unions.  I read somewhere that management gets the union it 
    deserves.  I fervently hope that Digital's management never deserves 
    a union.  If it comes to that, I see no future at all for Digital.

re .11:

>    If a person is going to accuse someone, they ought to be able to do it
>    face to face and non of this behind the back garbage.  Confront one's
>    accuser and all that.  
    
How many times have *YOU* been mistreated by someone dramatically
higher in whatever hierarchy than you were?  How many times did you go 
make a face-to-face complaint?  How many times did it do a bit of good?

If your answers to the first two questions are nonzero, then I'd be *very*
interested to find out what happened when you made your face-to-face
accusation.

If your answers are "zero" to all three questions, then I submit that
you might learn something if you listen to those who have been there.
My answers are >0, >0, and <0.  In other words, I was mistreated,
I brought it to the person responsible, and the result was worse
than useless.  But, hey, I didn't lose my job, so that's something.

Note, btw, that the Constitutional requirement that one be allowed to
"face one's accuser" applies to a TRIAL in an impartial court.  It's
not a requirement for getting the police to investigate your case.
And once you do get to court, the defendent is not part of the jury...

	Larry Seiler

Someone asked why this process is better than having an Ethics Office.
I see this process as an example of the sort of thing the Ethics Office
should implement immediately.  I encourage the author of .0 to write
directly to Win Hindle about this.  Similar ideas have been suggested
before, but it's worth trying again.

Someone asked what can be done to stop people from being harmed by
false accusations.  What harm?  An accusation is made, it is investigated,
and if it doesn't stand up, nobody hears about it.  Only the accusations
that stand up to an impartial investigation get reported by the CMC.
To be impartial, the process must bypass normal channels and organizations.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    re: .14
    
    An investigation means that someone has to begin asking questions.  The
    fact that someone is asking questions about your behavior can cause you
    considerable stress.  It also could lead those who were asked questions 
    to suppose that there _IS_ something wrong, even if nothing of merit is
    ever found.
    
    Some years ago, an investigator from KO's office called me and a number
    of other team members about an anonymous letter which complained about
    alleged wrongdoings in the team.  I knew nothing about the matter being
    investigated, but it could easily lead one to believe that "so and so
    may be guilty of this", which could adversely affect that person's
    reputation.
    
    So, a means of discouraging abuses of the system should at least be
    seriously considered.
    
    -- Russ

re .15:  It sounds to me like a case of straining at gnats and swallowing
camels.  Sure, it can cause discomfort to know that someone has written an
anonymous letter alledging some sort of abuse.  But it sounds to me as if
KO's investigators simply asked some questions and left it at that.  Who
was harmed?  Sure, there could have been serious harm if the investigators
had bungled, but apparently they didn't.

However, the preceeding notes haven't been talking about anonymous letters.
They've been talking about people who bring forward allegations to some
trusted authority charged with dealing with such allegations.  And when
that happens, the first step a good investigator takes is to thoroughly
interview the person making the allegations and check out the documentation.  
Only if it still looks plausible after that stage does anyone else even get 
contacted.  And good investigators are always careful to do their work quietly.

I really see *far* more harm arising from our current situation, in which
many people have no way to press their accusations, than could arise from 
the most extreme opposite situation.  Provided, as I said, that the 
investigators are competent and not biased in favor of the accuser.   :-) 

To try to express it a bit more colorfully, it's like complaining about
the wastefulness of a dripping faucet.  Yes, it's a problem, and yes,
it's a good idea to fix it.  But if the house is burning down, it's
probably not the thing that needs the most thought.  And if the person
who is assigned to stop the leaking faucet denies water to the people
trying to fight the fire, well...

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS:  I've been on both sides of this particular fence -- accuser and
accusee.  No, it wasn't pleasant to be accused of harrassing someone,
but a bit of investigation showed that the charges weren't valid.  I 
wasn't even informed of the charges until they had been proved false.
However, neither were they brought maliciously.  I'm really uncomfortable
with the idea of working out ways to punish people who bring charges.
There's already plenty of ways such people get punished, often without
reference to whether their charges are valid.  LS