Meeting with Director Bill Craig and Phil Howard on 5 Aug 2015

The following is the contents of the email  I sent to Bill Craig documenting the meeting I had with him and Phil Howard about my 2015 appraisal.  To which he never responded nor did Phil who never responded to a single email I sent to him for the next 4 years.

Mr Craig, as a results of the meeting we had on 5 Aug 2015 at 2:30 with you, Phil Howard and myself I felt the necessity to write.  In the earlier meeting, 4 Aug 2015, of only you and myself we discussed the issues I had with my appraisal.  During this meeting I pointed out that I had not been assigned any engineering work or technical projects during the last evaluation period, which is elementary to prove with the tasker system.  To be very clear I must emphatically state that I have not been assigned, offered nor refused any work, I repeat, any work, during this assessment period.   I told you that Phil was justifying his actions on the fact I could not show I had done engineering work.  My point being how can he penalize me for doing no work while being the same individual that originally stripped me of all work and stated explicitly that he had no work for me (“I have called HR and told them I have no work for you”) and then not providing any tasking for approximately the last a year and a half.  To my statement you said he has to give you work.  I was encouraged by this statement. 

Then we had the meeting of 5 Aug. at which Phil then changed his story claiming that I had refused work.  Of course this is for an entire year so it should be extensively documented by him but that was not the case.  There was not one single solitary piece of evidence presented by Phil throughout the entire meeting to support his allegation.  Other that verbal claims I did not witness him provide a single piece of hard evidence to support his claim.

You asked your only question of the whole entire meeting at the beginning to which Phil then stated I refused all work.  I was flabbergasted, which I sure was clear from my actions.  Then he goes on to make a statement, trying to tarnish me, that I was not selected because the interviewer wanted a younger person.    He had contradicted himself immediately.  How can he claim I refused all work but also state I interviewed for work.

During the course of his allegations that I refused all work I asked him twice to prove the statement he made.  I said it twice both time, prove it.  He sat there and starred at me and didn’t utter a single word.  He was allowed to make allegations throughout the meeting and did not provide any documentation to support them, even when I explicitly asked him to.  I would added I refuted every single allegation he made during the meeting and stated why they untrue or did not apply.

For example, Phil went on to state the PM wasn’t happy with my work.  To which I stated this statement is in reference to incidences that occurred over a year and a half ago.  80% of the rational Phil gave during the meeting was in reference to last evaluation period.  Which I pointed out to you.  He then went on to say I had missed some meetings.  Once again I pointed out that this occurred last evaluation period therefore not applicable.  How can he use actions from last evaluation period to support his acts this evaluation period?  He then states those were the reasons I was removed from the Black Hawk program.  To which I immediately stated the real reason I was removed which was because I disapproved the Level A safety critical Common EDECU (CEDECU) engine control software for the Apache and Black Hawk T701 engines.  To this Phil said nothing….. absolutely nothing and once again just sit and starred at me.  This is easily and irrefutable proven by mean of the tasker system and my charges to ATAAPS.  I disapproved the software twice once for noncompliance to DO-178B (no PSAC submission addressing that change was ever submitted as required by DO-178B – that block cycle) and then again when Phil stated that even though there was no PSAC I was to review the document, which I did, providing comments documenting technical inadequately, and then I was immediately removed from the program and told in the same discussion by Phil that he had no more work for me and that I “would find myself on the sidewalk.”    I believe most individuals will view the fact I was not given any work during this year (and part of last year starting directly after the disapproval) as retaliation to punish me for disapproving the CEDECU software in addition to the reduction of my appraisal without any corresponding documented disciplinary actions or performance issues or consulting.

Phil’s lack of supporting evidence was quite clear in his last statements about how he offered me work in this and that and to his surprise I recalled this conversation and corrected him.  This occurred during the final appraisal review.  Really, the end of the year and he presents this to you as offering me work when in reality he said “are you interested in” and proceeded to name some topics, like software development.  I stated I was interested in software airworthiness.  Which is the same thing I told you Dr Craig in the both meeting.

Other than your first question, he did not ask a single question.  At the end you throw up your hands saying you’re not touching it.   I asked you directly and you stated you did not intend to change my rating and the meeting concluded. 

We are talking about a year, 12 months.  A total year for Phil to document this alleged refusals to work you would think he would had a folder 3 inches thick with documentation.  Instead he has nothing.  Absolutely nothing to support his allegations but his words, nothing concrete, not one shred of paper was presented to me or you to support his claims.

The problem I’m having is understanding how you decided that the appraisal was proper and would not change it without a single solitary piece of hard evidence being presented and as I said I refuted every single word Phil’s spoke during the meeting.  I didn’t just say that what he said was wrong I told you why what he said was wrong.  Every single word.  Now you could have taken what was spoken and actually investigated the claims for yourself but you didn’t.  Basing your decision solely on verbal acquisitions made by Phil you decided to do nothing.

Hence the reason for writing this.  I am completely baffled how you could decide that the reduction in my appraisal was justified since I didn’t witness a single piece of evidence presented to you or to me even when I directly requested it from Phil during the meeting. I am documenting that my appraisal was unfairly lowered without any supporting documentation as required by official procedures.  As an example, how can he justify his actions without us having a midpoint.  I pointed this out to him that we had not done a midpoint, to which he demanded I sign the appraisal midpoint justifying it by the same logic he gives for my appraisal reduction that the final would be the midpoint.  This is documented by the dates of the signatures on the appraisal and by the fact I put 7/21/2015 our final meeting as the date of the midpoint on the worksheet, same date as our final meeting. 

Dr Craig, I’m requesting a written explanation as to how you derived this decision and what specific piece or pieces of evidence convinced you of your decision since I did not witness the examination of a single document.  This is to also notify you that I intend to continue my request for a written explanation from Phil.