Justice Denied

What appears below is as it seems.  I have edited some of the original statement, and have also omitted the names of those innocent of the charges contained within.


***********************************************


March 22, 2006

Civil Service Commission

25 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA  94102

  

Dear Commission Members:

I am in receipt of a February 22, 2006 letter from Philip A. Ginsburg, Human Resources Director for the City and County of San Francisco.  In Mr. Ginsburg’s letter, the Department of Human Resources approves the Municipal Transportation Agency’s “action to dismiss your complaint of sexual harassment due to insufficient evidence” against Department of Parking and Traffic supervisor Nancy Amaya. 

Mr. Ginsburg advises me in his letter that I am given thirty (30) calendar days to appeal to the Civil Service Commission to reverse the Department of Human Resources’ affirmation of MTA’s denial of my complaint.  Please find this letter as my appeal to the Civil Service Commission to do so.  I am also asking the Civil Service Commission’s assistance in ending—in as expeditious a manner as possible--Ms. Amaya’s continued and ongoing sexual harassment of me.

Mr. Ginsburg’s February 22, 2006 letter affirms the decision reached by MTA’s Equal Employment Opportunity Section office in my case against Ms. Amaya as detailed in EEO Section Manager Vernon Crawley’s February 13, 2006 letter to me.  Mr. Crawley’s detailing of the MTA EEO Section office’s investigation of my case makes it appear to be run-of-the-mill in its ordinariness:  Although my allegation that Ms. Amaya asked me to her home between 6-10 times between mid-2003 and January-February 2005 was confirmed, and that my allegation that Ms. Amaya’s invitations to me became more sexually suggestive in nature during the course of the relevant period was also confirmed, Mr. Crawley’s MTA EEO Section office concluded that Ms. Amaya’s harassment of me did not “contain the required elements of frequency, severity or pervasiveness sufficient to establish an abusive work environment. . . . The nature of the alleged sexual comments were not lewd, malicious, or vulgar, but more consistent with simple and infrequent teasing.”

The simplicity of MTA’s EEO Section office response to my sexual harassment complaint against Ms. Amaya is a model of brevity.  The EEO Section office’s succinctness, however, does not address the “more complicated and complex” nature of the complaints of mine forwarded to the MTA EEO Section office as described by Mr. Crawley in a February 15, 2006 e-mail to me (Copy enclosed).  In addition to the sexual harassment charge made by me against Ms. Amaya, the Department of Parking and Traffic also forwarded to the MTA EEO Section office:

1) A retaliation complaint of mine against Ms. Amaya for an action she took against me after I cosigned a departmental misconduct complaint with two other DPT officers for the unacceptable conduct she took against each of us (See my May 20, 2005 letter to DPT Assistant Director Marie Holland), conduct defined as unacceptable by the DPT General Enforcement Division Policy and Procedures Section 2.1  ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT (Copy enclosed).

2) The retaliation Ms. Amaya engaged in against DPT Senior Clerk ____________, a witness to Ms. Amaya’s sexual harassment of me, which I reported to Mr. Crawley in an August 2005 meeting.

3) A verbal misrepresentation to me on May 26, 2005 by DPT Assistant Director Marie Holland of corroborating evidence she gained from __________ about Ms. Amaya’s sexual harassment of me in Ms. Holland’s departmental investigation into my retaliation complaint (See my May 31, 2005 letter addressed to SFPD Commander Sylvia Harper), and

4) Either a verbal misrepresentation or the filing of a false report concerning the same corroborating evidence Ms. Holland learned from __________ in their meeting, which immediately preceded my own meeting with Ms. Holland on that date. 

     Mr. Crawley’s February 13, 2006 letter to me addresses none of these “more complicated and complex” matters.  And yet, in his February 15 e-mail to me, they are the basis for his justifying the EEO Section office’s sitting on the outcome to a case I first presented to Mr. Crawley on June 2, 2005.  (In that meeting, requiring no prompting of mine, Mr. Crawley volunteered the information to me that the EEO Section office had recently been receiving other complaints against Ms. Amaya. . . .) 

Why are the additional complaints of mine forwarded to the MTA EEO Section office not addressed?  Ms. Amaya’s disruptive and/or unprofessional conduct while on duty or on DPT property, and her abusive, intimidating, and threatening manner while serving as an officer for the City and County of San Francisco . . . and Assistant Director Holland’s providing cover for Ms. Amaya to abuse, intimidate, and threaten other DPT employees . . . has helped to create and maintain “an abusive working environment” for far too many of the men and women of CCSF DPT’s General Enforcement Division for far too many years.  This was precisely the nature of the work environment I entered in December 2001 (as hostile and toxic an employee workplace as I have ever experienced) and this was the work environment that came to include Ms. Amaya’s sexual harassment of me.

Surely, Ms. Amaya’s initial retaliatory action taken against me—in which, during her conversation with __________, who is a neighbor of my now-fiancee, Ms. Amaya asked who was the passive character and who was the aggressive character in the relationship between my fiancee and myself—provides proof of a "woman scorned.”  (I made this point to Mr. Crawley and to EEO Section Assistant Manager Kim Holman, who conducted the investigation into my charges against Ms. Amaya, but that evidence of her sexually-tinged harassment of me is not mentioned.)  The other complaints about Ms. Amaya brought to the MTA EEO Section office that Mr. Crawley alluded to in our initial June 2005 meeting (and his additional characterization of Ms. Amaya to me in our August 2005 meeting as being “an equal opportunity harasser”) substantiate the sexual harassment complaint I have lodged against her. 

Despite all of the above, the MTA EEO Section office chose to delay the issuance of a finding in my case for eight months.  It is my contention that the EEO Section office’s failure to enforce EEO guidelines against the likes of Ms. Amaya and Ms. Holland has led to the continued harassment of me by Ms. Amaya into 2006, and it is this ongoing harassment that I am also asking the Civil Service Commission to take action to end.

In January 2006, I was appointed by the DPT General Enforcement Division chapter of Service Employees International Union Local 790 to serve as a voting member of Local 790’s Negotiating Committee with the City and County of San Francisco for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  Flyers announcing the appointments of myself and three other DPT employees were distributed well in advance of a February 8, 2006 chapter meeting, at which time the chapter’s Negotiating Committee members were introduced.

During that meeting, I introduced a “DPT Code Of Conduct and EEO Guidelines Resolution.”  The resolution condemned the General Enforcement Division’s Assistant Directors, the liaison SFPD Commander’s office and certain DPT Supervisors for failing to abide by and enforce DPT’s own code of conduct and all relevant EEO guidelines.  Ms. Amaya’s November-December 2005 appointment by Commander Harper to work out of the Assistant Directors office was so destructive to the morale of DPT’s General Enforcement Division personnel that it provided the crowning evidence of the Department’s failure to enforce its own code of conduct and all relevant EEO guidelines contained in the DPT “Code of Conduct” resolution.  The DPT chapter members present at the February 8 meeting voted overwhelmingly in favor of approving the “Code of Conduct” resolution. . . .

In late February 2006, a special chapter meeting was held to accept nominations for the same DPT Negotiating Committee team that DPT chapter leadership had appointed earlier.  (Another DPT employee and I had been moved to a different location at the time due to the harassment by another DPT employee described below.)  According to an “Emergency Chapter Meeting for DPT” flyer dated February 21, 2006, which was posted at DPT’s General Enforcement Division facility at 505 7^th Street, the call for an election was due to “several concerns as to how the Negotiations Team had been selected.”

The “Emergency Chapter Meeting for DPT” flyer smacks of Ms. Amaya’s hand in forcing an extraordinary nomination process on the DPT chapter after DPT chapter leadership faithfully executed the appointive process in selecting its Negotiating Committee membership.  Ms. Amaya’s subsequent victory in the election balloting—in which she replaced me as a voting member of DPT’s Negotiating Committee team—also smacks of her interference in my protected union activity as an appointed member of the DPT chapter body, and of her continued sexual harassment of me.

I was harassed on February 13, 2006, by Parking Control Officer James Hudson in retaliation for the protected union activity I engaged in on February 8.  On February 15, 2006, I learned additional information about Hudson to conclude that he presented a reasonable threat to my physical wellbeing.  I informed my supervisor at DPT on February 15 of Hudson’s harassment and the threat that he presented to me. 

My Supervisor wrote a letter summarizing my February 15 comments to her and forwarded the letter to Assistant Director Holland.  On the morning of February 16, Hudson appeared at the second floor Dispatch Center at 505 7^th Street with a copy of my supervisor’s report in his hands.  I believe that copy of my supervisor’s report was given to Hudson to provoke him to further acts of harassment and possible physical assault.  I have learned since then that Ms. Holland did not provide to Hudson the copy of my supervisor’s report. I suspect that Ms. Amaya was the DPT officer who supplied a copy to him of my Supervisor’s report in order to feed her own sexual harassment of me.

I look forward to your reply.

Alex Reyes

DPT Code of Conduct and EEO Guidelines Resolution

In January 2006, a group of San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic dispatchers, parking officers and supervisors joined together in an effort to "change the culture" at the Department's General Enforcement Division.  In a meeting with Service Employees International Union Local 790 (now merged into SEIU Local 1021) representatives, it was agreed that the Local would support the group's effort if they were able to get approved by the DPT chapter the resolution that follows.

The resolution was passed on a near unanimous vote.  Despite the earlier agreement, the Local 790 staffers then withdrew their promise of support.

Although the San Francisco Police Commander listed in the resolution was soon relieved of her duty at DPT, Assistant Directors Debbie Borthne and Marie Holland remained in place.  If SEIU Local 790's officers had kept their word, the General Enforcement Division's assistant directors may have been removed and a more professional atmosphere instituted.  Instead, DPT, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and San Francisco government have remained corrupted.   Rogue parking supervisor Elias Georgopolous enjoys the support of the City Attorney's office and SEIU Local 1021. Whistleblowing supervisor Vidalina "Bebe" Pubill, a highly popular and professional officer, has been fired.  The rest of DPT's 300-plus employees at the General Enforcement Division remain hostage.

 *****************************************************************

Whereas, all City and County of San Francisco employees who work as officers for the Department of Parking and Traffic are bound to perform their duties in accordance with the General Enforcement Division Policy and Procedures Section 2-1  Conduct, and by city and county, state, and federal equal employment opportunity guidelines, and

Whereas, in the past two years, the General Enforcement Division Commander and Assistant Directors have failed to act upon and have denied valid departmental misconduct and EEO violation complaints brought by numerous DPT personnel against Department Assistant Directors, Supervisors, and other personnel, and

Whereas, the Manager and Assistant Manager for the Metropolitan Transportation Agency Equal Employment Opportunity office, who are responsible for the enforcement and oversight of EEO guidelines at both the Department of Parking and Traffic and at . . . Muni, have failed to act upon and have denied valid departmental misconduct and EEO violation complaints forwarded to them by the Department of Parking and Traffic, and

Whereas, since mid-2005, the Office of the Mayor of the City of San Francisco, and certain members of the County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, have been advised of the breakdown of DPT’s enforcement of departmental conduct and EEO guidelines, and

Whereas, the administrative corruption of DPT’s code of conduct and adherence to EEO guidelines has been made known to every appropriate CCSF agency in the past ten years, and

Whereas, on November 2, 2005, the current Departmental corruption of the MTA EEO’s investigation into complaints arising from DPT was confirmed.  In a meeting on that date with DPT personnel, the EEO investigator in charge of numerous complaints against DPT Assistant Directors and Supervisors thrice denied advising the Commander and the Department to ensure the rotation of a Supervisor with multiple pending departmental misconduct and EEO charges against her to a non-505 7^th Street-based facility effective with the October 22, 2005, Supervisor Detail posting, and

Whereas, the same Supervisor was appointed in November or December 2005 by the Commander and the Department to perform assistant director duties from a desk in the Assistant Director’s Office in the DPT facility from which she was ordered removed.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the CCSF DPT membership of SEIU Local 790 call upon the SEIU San Francisco Regional Conference (to) support their chapter’s effort to establish a faithful enforcement of the employee Code of Conduct and EEO guidelines to the administration of their Department. 

Therefore, be it further resolved, that the DPT membership also call upon Local 790 to appeal to the government of the City and County of San Francisco on their behalf to ask CCSF to effect all necessary changes.  The chapter asks that such changes include the assignment of a member of San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, who is acceptable to the membership, to investigate the multiple departmental misconduct and EEO complaints filed against DPT personnel, and to take all appropriate action from the time of the Commission’s appointment.

Approved by the DPT Enforcement Division Chapter of SEIU Local 790 on February 8, 2006.

A sea change for SFMTA?

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s June 15 announcement that Executive Director Nathaniel Ford will leave his position June 30 has been met by nearly universal acclaim.  Of those commenting on San Francisco Chronicle’s sfgate website, many railed against both Ford’s severance package totaling $384,000 and the $300K annual salary paid to him at the time of the termination.

Most of the public wrath towards Ford arises from the eternally troubled performance of Muni, the city’s public transportation system.  Fed-up citizens voted in 1999 for a local proposition demanding that Muni increase its on-time performance to 85%.  During Ford’s five-plus-year tenure, Muni reached a high of 75% on-time delivery performance at the beginning of 2010.  Its latest on-time rate sits at just over 71%.

San Franciscans are all too aware of the administrative headaches that plague Muni managers.  A prolonged economic downturn, decrepit rail lines, long-past-their-prime vehicles and a driver force that is as likely not to show up for work as it is to do so--and to behave unprofessionally while on the job--are the operational norm for Muni.  An announcement of a June 7 press conference and rally in defense of a whistle-blowing Muni driver states that Executive Director Ford is himself “in court here and in Atlanta for sexual harassment . . . and financial malfeasance.”  Reading between the lines of MTA’s decision not to keep Ford as its Executive Director, it is easy to imagine that his personal troubles have as much to do with his departure as the agency’s public performance.

The public transgressions of Muni’s outgoing director are more than matched by SFMTA’s internal administrative wrongdoings.  News stories about the state of the agency routinely refer to “employee gripes and suggestions.”  Such reports tend to focus upon the daily, ongoing struggles between bus drivers, parking control officers and a demanding public. But there is also a longstanding internal tension within MTA that adds to employee demoralization:  MTA’s coddling of rogue employees at the expense of the overwhelming majority of its truly civil civil servants.

SFMTA recently fired a 19-year veteran parking supervisor for blowing the whistle on a fellow supervisor.   City and County government is defending him in three concurrent legal cases (two assault charges and a federal sexual harassment complaint).  This employee has also been accused of attempted ticket fixing and the illegal use of a state disabled parking placard.  Additionally, he is the subject of a restraining order secured by a subordinate whom he attacked.

Rather than provide their nominal services, MTA’s equal employment opportunity, human resources and worker's compensation offices are often involved instead with mitigating the financial and legal responsibility of employees who have a propensity to misbehave in reprehensible ways.  (These actions mirror the transit operators union, who defend any and every driver who is accused of betraying the public trust.)  At the Department of Parking and Traffic’s General Enforcement Division, for example, employees have suffered severe emotional breakdowns due to workplace harassment.  Such harassment can come from many directions:  administrators, directors, managers, supervisors or peers.  After years of such abuse, these employees have then had to suffer the slings of the agency’s apparatchiks, who work to deny them their legal employment rights.  Having worked at SFMTA/DPT for five years, I have first-hand knowledge of this history. 

Ford’s departure presents a golden opportunity for the City and County of San Francisco to bring the SFMTA in compliance with existing workplace law.  One of those named in news reports as a possible successor is Deputy Executive Director Carter Rohan.  Rohan is responsible for the agency’s EEO office.  If he were to be interviewed for the job, one of the questions that should be asked is “What would you do as executive director to reverse SFMTA’s support of workplace injustices?”

Any answer other than “I will make it a top priority” should not be accepted.  The San Francisco public and its civil servants deserve nothing less.


Update:  Carter Rohan has announced his resignation from SFMTA. SFMTA's Executive Board has appointed Debra Johnson as Interim Executive Director.  In her role as MTA Director responsible for the Agency's Human Resources, Labor Relations and Workers Compensation offices, Ms. Johnson signed the termination letter of whistleblower DPT Supervisor Vidalina Pubill on behalf of former director Ford.

Saint Francis Weeps

A human rights crisis exists within San Francisco government.

ABC Television San Francisco affiliate KGO's May 12, 2011 report on San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Parking Control Supervisor Elias Georgopolous stated that the City Attorney is representing him as a defendant in three concurrent legal cases.  These include two civil court lawsuits charging physical assault and a federal equal employment opportunity sexual harassment complaint.   KGO-TV's report featured a number of City and County parking officers who have filed complaints for years about Georgopolous' antisocial on-duty behavior.  KGO's investigative "I-Team" even unearthed a San Francisco Superior Court judge’s 2000 written complaint about Georgopolous’ “rogue” employee conduct.

San Francisco government is using excessive administrative resources to defend an out-of-control parking officer.

KGO’s report on the weight of Georgopolous’ legal problems was added to by the showing of a City and County Whistleblower complaint about him.  SFMTA Parking Control Supervisor Vidalina “Bebe” Pubill filed that complaint in 2008.  Pubill was one of four San Francisco employees featured in a May 25 investigative report about San Francisco’s broken employee misconduct Whistleblower program.

In the May 25 report, Pubill says that a Whistleblower program employee followed up with her after she had filed her complaint in 2008, but broke off communication with her in mid-2009.  The Whistleblower Program lists Pubill’s Georgopolous complaint as “Closed:  Resolved by the Department or Agency.”

If San Francisco government has ever taken disciplinary action against Georgopolous, it is not apparent in his continuing hostile conduct.  In April of this year, another parking officer corroborated Pubill’s account that Georgopolous flashed his vehicle’s lights upon her as she approached her own vehicle in a DPT parking lot.  Pubill reported that Georgopolous also revved his engine in a threatening manner. 

On May 19, 2011, parking officer Brian Tanabe called the San Francisco Police Department to respond to his report that Georgopolous, Tanabe's supervisor, was in violation of a restraining order.  Tanabe secured the order after Georgopolous attacked him outside of Parking and Traffic’s main enforcement facility. Georgopolous targeted Tanabe after his subordinate learned that he and his wife, another parking control officer, were using a state disabled parking placard.

***********************************************

KGO’s May 12 report about Georgopolous ended with a reporter asking SFMTA Executive Director Nathaniel Ford “Is any employee untouchable?” 

“No, not at all,” Ford responded.  “What you’ve presented is disturbing and we will get to the bottom of it.”

Ford’s MTA has taken action:  By the time KGO's May 25 San Francisco Whistleblower Program had finished airing, whistleblower Vidalina Pubill was fired.

***********************************************

The history of administrative misconduct shown by San Francisco government and its Department of Parking and Traffic dates back to the 1997 operational start date of the Department.  Now that DPT is overseen by SFMTA, its administrative offices have also become corrupted by their failure to enforce and maintain a truly civil civil service.  Such a decade-plus long hostile work environment is a crime against not just innocent San Francisco employees' work rights, but against their human rights as well.

In 2006, a Parking and Traffic employee died of a heart attack at her desk.  Three male employees in front of the Department’s main enforcement facility harassed her shortly before she died.  Two of the three DPT employees who followed her to a nearby garage were identified at the time to SFMTA Management.  Both remain on the job.

A human rights crisis exists within San Francisco government.  

EXTERNAL LINKS:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/channel?section=news/iteam&id=7104859

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8128153&pid=8128544