A BELATED “NOT THE SHARPEST TACK IN THE BOX” AWARD.

In perusing my archival files, I discovered my case No. 135-04, a case in which a Captain at the California Institution For Men wrote and issued a Letter Of Instruction to a subordinate supervisor. The problem came when the allegations cited on the, disputed, Letter Of Instruction were fraught with lies, dishonesty and fraud.

For this reason, a complaint¹ was filed with the State Personnel Board, against the Captain, as per the instruction found in Government Code §19583.5 in which the attendant subsections of GC §19572 were cited as cause for discipline against the malfeasant Captain.

In defense of himself, in one of the most stunning examples of creative writing I have ever seen, this Captain wrote a, self-serving, letter of explanation to Margaret Teague, Staff Counsel, Legal Affairs Division, California Department of Corrections, in which he states that the Letter of Instruction was written by another individual and he merely signed and served it.

Even though there is no empirical evidence that this was true (indeed there were no other signatures on the Letter Of Instruction nor any reference to a third party author within the document), Margaret Teague adopted his fabrication which she regurgitated to the State Personnel Board as the official Departmental defense of this Captain's dishonesty, never addressing or disputing the dishonesty of the Captain which formed the basis of the original complaint. It would appear that analytical thought is not a necessary prerequisite for passing the Bar Exams in California.

Wow, Golly Gee Marge, maybe this other individual was the Captain's clone???

Now we come to the official letter from the State Personnel Board who swallowed this preposterous story "hook, line and sinker". In a letter authored (at least signed) by Stacey Burdue, Associate Personnel Analyst, State Personnel Board, on the basis of this superficial and self-serving explanation of the Department of Corrections, the complaint was denied.

In my experience, when dealing with politically powerful individuals, this type of myopia by the State Personnel Board is the rule rather than the exception.

In the annual training sessions that are required of all Correctional Officers, employees are instructed to utilize worthless avenues to process whistleblower complaints and reports of employee misconduct. Roads to nowhere such as:

1. Processing them through the Appointing Authority (Warden)

and

2. Processing them through the State Personnel Board.

Margaret Teague and Stacey Burdue, for your lack of analytical abilities and general gullibility, I award you the, never-to-be-prestigious, "NOT THE SHARPEST TACK IN THE BOX" AWARD.

Lorraine Bradley
http://prisoncorruption.blogspot.com

___________________________

¹"Request To File Charges"