[Watchdogs] "Comment Regarding AAS Story on Trial"
carlostx at sbcglobal.net
Sun Dec 5 01:07:06 CST 2010
Milton and all:
Regarding the sudden transfer of Luis Garcia.
I think it's a sure bet there was a direct link between Luis Garcia's probing into "need to know" information and his rather sudden transfer by Fuelberg to some other position in the PEC. As I understand it, the claim was made that Fuelberg wanted to give key people some experience in other areas within the PEC, so that's why he moved Garcia. If Garcia was not asked under oath whether he knew why he was transferred, I think that's a big oversight. Without any factual answer to counter what's been tossed out as a reason, we are left with speculation and that's probably not all that helpful in Court.
A related disappointment is that Luis Garcia still allows the PEC staff to operate as if PEC business is none of the business of its member/owners, and Garcia does this even after he was apparently victimized by the secretive and self-serving reign of Fuelberg and his totally captive and submissive Board,
It seems to me the PEC staff has been operating in secrecy so long that it is worse than pulling teeth for them to provide a straight answer to a simple request for information by a member/owner.
The PEC staff has essentially ignored my straightforward request for information regarding attorneys hired by the PEC in recent months, the reason for hiring them, and amounts paid to them. In my request for information, I also asked that If the PEC staff is unwilling or unable to provide the requested information, to please give me their reasons for withholding it. Thus far, I have neither the information requested nor any reason whatsoever from the PEC staff for refusing to provide it. I get no answer.
The staff's non-response is totally at odds with the Board's public position of supporting openness at the PEC.
So where is the problem? Has secrecy become so imbedded in the corporate character of the PEC that the staff is spring-loaded to opt for secrecy, despite the public stance for openness by the new Board? Is secrecy so imbedded that our acting General Manager cannot purge it, even though, given his history at the PEC, he would presumably be a proponent for a reasonable level of openness at the PEC?
By now, we should all recognize that too much corporate secrecy eventually leads to corruption. It did before; it will again. But the mind-set at the PEC still seems to be ‘secrecy is the best policy.' What is it going to take to get rid of that mind-set?
512 258 3564 CarlosTX at sbcglobal.net
--- On Sat, 12/4/10, Milton Hawkins <milton.hawkins at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Milton Hawkins <milton.hawkins at gmail.com>
Subject: [Watchdogs] Clarifying My Last Posting "Comment Regarding AAS Story on Trial"
To: "Watchdogs" <watchdogs at pec4u.org>
Cc: "Patrick George" <pgeorge at statesman.com>
Date: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 11:31 AM
In case anyone missed it, in my last post I was NOT criticizing Patrick George's reporting.
It is obvious that there was a link between Garcia's being transferred from the HR manager position, which he held when he wrote the letter to Demond, to the IT position, for which he had no real qualifications.
It is equally obvious that there was a link between Garcia's sudden transfer from his position as legal services manager to a new position as HR manager (another position he was ill prepared to fill) and some previous questioning (not revealed at trial, unfortunately) of the relationship between PEC and Walter Demond and the Clark, Thomas and Winters law firm.
My point is that Mr. Luis Garcia gave no hint of any of this in his testimony yesterday. Not only that, but for some strange and unknown reason, as the person making the comment observed, the state prosecutor never really pressed Garcia about any of this.
I hope this clarifies my thinking.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Watchdogs